The Opposition is LIVE!
Thanks to everyone who has made our launch a smashing success! Please feel free to share our url, twitter and facebook page around -- we appreciate every new reader we get.
Zimmerman: The Western Saviour Complex
“Take up the White Man’s burden –
Have done with childish days –
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!”
-Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s burden, 1899
The strange case of the Kony 2012 phenomenon is a chance to reflect on the complex relationship between those of us in the so-called First World and those of us in the so-called Third World. The organization Invisible Children got massive attention for this latest campaign and their intentions may have appeared to many observers as completely benign and admirable at first glance. They were creating global awareness of the atrocities committed by a brutal warlord in Eastern Africa and stating that they wanted to see Joseph Kony face justice. It all seemed noble, but on closer inspection and in light of how things turned out, people started questioning the real motives beyond it. One of the results of the campaign was an announcement by the Obama Administration to keep American military advisers in Uganda. The bizarre naked meltdown of Kony 2012’s main organizer, Jason Russel in the street in San Diego raised some eyebrows but the most telling incident involving Kony 2012 was when the now famous video was played before an audience in Lira, a town in Uganda where Kony committed some of his worst atrocities. The audience was made up of the very people the Kony 2012 campaign purported to be trying to help yet by the end of the showing the audience became frustrated and lashed out at the members of the organizations, even pelting rocks at them and demanding they leave.
What exactly went wrong? Some of the campaign’s critics cite the fact that Joseph Kony is not even present in Uganda anymore and that sending military advisors to Uganada is a completely useless move. A major critique leveled at Kony 2012 by many is the lack of context and the presence of patronizing language. This campaign, many argued, was a new manifestation of the Western Saviour Complex.
What exactly is the Western Saviour Complex? If I had to come up with a definition for an encyclopedia for it the line would go something like this:
Western Saviour Complex: the deeply embedded notion that any problem in any part of the world can, or even must be solved by Western countries. Historical examples include Columbus bringing Christianity to the “Indians” and America bringing “democracy” to Iraq.
Every colonial project during Europe’s period of colonialism seemed to be justified by some language or another. There were people who spoke out against colonialism in Europe and in the Americas but ever present was the argument that it was ultimately in the subjected people’s own interest to be governed by outsiders. Even among liberals one can sometimes sense the language of a perceived natural order involving the Western states play a role not unlike that of a traditional patriarch. Nowadays these are the voices that claim to be progressive yet they may support international policies that are not so enlightened in the long-run. In some such opinions Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is seen as beneficial, or that the ouster of a democratically elected leader in Haiti was necessary for the sake of Haiti’s progress. Others may come from organizations that seem well-meaning at first glance but often carry with them a mentality that view their own selves and their actions as the only solution to people’s complicated problems thousands of miles away. This mentality, whether raw and blatantly obvious or more subtle, is the long-term product of an ideological phenomenon that has its roots in the colonial period of Western Europe.
Let’s start this examination with the role of governments on the international arena. Our first question is: what really guides the actions of most nation-states? The realm of international politics is one where strategy is the most important factor. When nations take actions, whether political, financial or military, they always do so with their strategic interests in mind. Countries with large economies, and often strong military power to back it up, naturally have the most clout on the global scale. When nation-states like the United States, our struggling global superpower, or rising giants like Russia and China, take actions it is fair to say that the concerns of the respective powers that be in those states are what drive their respective international policies. Media often treats the actions of Western states with a double-standard when compared to others. (It is also arguable that mainstream media in non-Western countries often may have similar projections of exceptionalism and/or ultimately present the interests of individuals or organizations with power, but in this article I focus exclusive attention to the particular phenomenon of the deeply rooted Western saviour mentality of the former colonial states.) In mainstream media here in the Western world, largely including mainstream Canadian media, our reasons for moving on that international chessboard are motivated not by the quest for resources or hegemonic influence like other states, but are driven by a desire to do good in the world. This is a Manichaeism world-view, which is an outlook on the real world as a singular battle of good vs. evil with absolutely nothing in between.
Speaking of a dangerously morally simplistic worldview let’s discuss a bit on George W. Bush and his legacy. When President Bush II invaded Iraq he cited three major reasons that we are all too familiar with now. The first was to prevent Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s then President, from making Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was false. The second was because the secular Arab Nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein was apparently best buddies with Osama bin Laden’s fanatical Wahhabi sect of Islam group Al Qaeda. This one also turned out to be false although it should have been obvious for any one who actually takes time to read up on the very complicated realities of the Middle-East. Finally, the last reason, and the one that Bush and company stuck to until the end, was that the reason for the invasion was for the sake of liberation for the Iraqi people. This line was given to the public repeatedly by the war’s supporters, including former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair who insisted even after the initial reasons were proven false that removing Saddam Hussein was “the right thing to do.” It was simply accepted by so many that the war was necessary and was overall done in the Iraqi people’s best interest. Liberation from a ruthless dictator, they argued, could only come through war. The Iraqi people could not overcome the tyrant on their own. It’s hard to forget the arguments being made at the time and it seems somewhat stranger now in the era of the Arab Spring when people in the region have successfully (in some cases) removed their dictators themselves.
Can anybody really believe these arguments? Do the few supporters left of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and coalition allies honestly believe that the motivations behind the invasion were based on compassion? For a clearer answer we have to look past the rhetoric and focus instead on actual actions and results. Look at, for instance, the actions of the United States during the 1991 Gulf War, the first time America attacked Iraq. The first President Bush showed an apparent sign of solidarity with Iraq’s people on February 15 of that year when he told them to “take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations’ resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.” After the cease-fire declared on February 24th and the Iraqi government brutally repressed the uprising resulting in thousands of Iraqi deaths, President Bush stated on April 2nd that he had not “not misled anybody about the intentions of the United States of America.” He went on to say “I don’t think the Shias in the south, those who are unhappy with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad or the Kurds in the north, ever felt that the United States would come to their assistance to overthrow this man. (…) I made clear from the very beginning that it was not an objective of the coalition or the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein.” It is especially telling when it is revealed that the initial line of supposed solidarity that went out was really to keep Saddam’s army occupied in Iraq so the United States would run into less opposition from Iraqi troops in Kuwait. The Iraqi people who opposed the government were thus used for strategic purposes and the slaughter was immense in both Iraq’s predominantly Shia South and Kurdish North. Actions speak louder than words although words can be utilized to use people for strategic purposes. The words are nothing but superficial statements made to justify every action taken by the powerful to convince people that they are always on the side of right in the great simplistic battle of right and wrong. Again, actions and actual results speak louder than words ever can.
The idea that it is the role of Western states to save the people of the “third world” seems like a subliminal pre-acknowledged consensus in many circles of Western society. Many people in power seem to favour using that language. In Canada it seems very common as of late, particularly in regard to the long U.S. backed occupation of Afghanistan. Back in 2007 when the New Democratic Party (NDP) was calling for the withdrawal of troops Prime Minister Stephen Harper said not to “abandon Afghans.” Here the assumption is made that the military presence once more is one of complete benign intentions. Rhetoric was made by Conservative Members of Parliament and Ministers of not leaving Afghanistan’s women to a horrible fate. The women of Afghanistan in particular, considering the misogyny of the pre-2001 Taliban government, are a favourite rhetorical tool for supporters of the war. Of course the Western world, all save a few including MP George Galloway from the UK, was willing to turn a blind eye on the mujaheddin, precursors of the Taliban, when they were used to drive out the Soviets. The right-wingers and some liberals using the language of women’s rights may push for the continuation of the military occupation in Afghanistan, shutting down the voices of actual Afghan women, such as Malalai Joya, citing that if it wasn’t for Western intervention that they would (apparently) be killed, effectively silencing the sources of dissent on the basis of them coming from women. From the Western Saviour’s point of view the Western forces are in Afghanistan to protect women, therefore women in Afghanistan who speak out against the occupation are wrong to do so. Can someone truly be for women’s rights if they use rhetorical tactics like these to dismiss the courageous women who do speak out on the very basis that they are women?
I recall one time speaking to a co-worker about the mission and my reservations towards the military presence of Canadian troops there. His response was: “I think that country has been screwed over so much it needs some help.” There it is present again, the idea that exists among so many people in this part of the world that our motivations can only be beneficial to people in those other parts of the world. The idea of “we know what’s best for them” is so prevalent that there seems to be no real debate about it in mainstream discourse.
And how is Afghanistan? How much have we done for them? A recent report from Amnesty International presents a less than rosy picture. Half a million Afghans are now homeless due to the intense fighting between NATO forces and the insurgency and about 30,000 Afghans live in makeshift tents outside of Kabul in deplorable conditions. Unemployment and addictions to opiates has reached unprecedented levels. This insurgency made up of former Taliban, but also of Afghans who simply resent foreign presence in their country, is also ironically partly funded by NATO’s presence. Certain rural routes in Afghanistan are filled with insurgent and tribal fighters unfriendly to Western forces, but the military pays local (sometimes Taliban) militia safety payments in order to allow convoys full of supplies for troops to travel these routes unmolested. This money paid by Western powers goes directly to funding a brutal insurgency that only exists to resist the foreign military presence to begin with. In this case the only thing we are bringing is more war and helping to entrench a cycle of violence in Afghanistan. So much for liberation!
On top of all this the women of Afghanistan, the supposed reason why American, Canadian and European troops are stationed in Afghanistan, are not faring much better than they were under the Taliban. A report from 2011 cited that 87% of women had experienced physical, psychological and/or sexual abuse. All this has taken place under a Western-backed government made up largely of warlords that have virtually legalized spousal rape and recently backed a decree that officially states women to be subordinate to men. Ten years we have had our troops stationed in Afghanistan accompanied by relentless propaganda from both conservatives and liberals alike about our mission being to “free the women of Afghanistan”. We have a simplistic understanding of the reality in Afghanistan. It was not always as it is now. War, first external and then internal, was what brought it to its current state and it is nothing short of incredibly naive to believe that militarizing a society further will solve the problems.
This brings us to our next example: Libya. This is a recent story and the dust is still settling, so to speak, on the situation in this North African state and since Colonel Gaddafi’s killing the issue has largely disappeared from world media. The uprising began largely peaceful and, like the Arab Springs in Tunisia and Egypt, may have truly been an expression of the peoples popular will against what was largely considered an authoritarian dictatorship, but things became more muddled and less clear cut, as they often do, as it went on. The United Nations, led by the Western states, but also including some support from Russia and China, backed Resolution 1970 that called for “a no fly zone” over Libya and for “the protection of civilians”. There emerged an armed force opposing Gaddafi called the Libya Free Army which became the National Transitional Council once the rebels gained territory and began governing. The resolution stuck at first but the United States and other NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) states took actions beyond their initial mandate and directly intervened through aerial bombardment and assistance to the Libya Free Army. There is a debate to be had on when nations can intervene in the case of situations such as this one, but, as I am about to explain, the decision of NATO leaders to go beyond their international mandate led to disastrous results on the ground for many civilians in Libya.
The images of Colonel Gaddafi being lynched by the NTC has been broadcast around the world by now. People may feel mixed about if it is truly justice was what happened, but there are many other images we seldom, if ever, saw on our television screens. Although respected international human rights organizations called for an end to Gaddafi’s regime and for the protection of Libyan civilians, shortly after the civil war officially ended they seemed to be telling a slightly different story than the one we were told beforehand. Amnesty International, one of the most respected of these groups, cited that there was no concrete evidence that the Libyan government committed large-scale acts of killing against protestors. Amnesty only had media reports to go on for news on Libya before the invasion but now that Gaddafi was dead they had more access on the ground. The government, they found, did repress initial demonstrations, but the investigation cites that “there is no proof of mass killing of civilians on the scale of Syria or Yemen,” nor was there evidence of anti-aircraft guns being used against crowds, nor was there proof that black sub-Saharan African mercenaries were used by Gaddafi. This investigation also criticized Western media for portraying the conflict as one-sided and clear-cut. Most of the political parties in Canada continued to support the mission though, even the historically anti-war NDP.
When the NTC (National Transition Council) took Tripoli and other cities in Libya there emerged news of massive lynching campaigns against black Africans due to the rumours of Gaddafi hiring black mercenaries. The majority of those killed were sub-Saharan African migrant workers who had come to Libya in hopes of supporting their families back in their respective sub-Saharan countries. It is also reported that black African women were raped in refugee camps by rebels. The aerial bombardments by NATO have been found to have killed many civilians as well. The role of NATO going beyond its mandate led to these developments on the ground and it is nothing short of terribly ironic that a resolution that was made to protect Libyan civilians may have ended up killing so many of them. The dust settles on Libya and the story may be clearer in time. On this subject, a friend and staunch activist (@humhum83) captured much of the sentiment with the outcome when he once put it to me: “The NTC is shady at best.”
Where does this leave us? From the cases I have mentioned above (and there are so many other examples both historical and contemporary) what does this say about the role of the Western Saviour Complex? It is something very real and very present in the discourse of so many in the Western world, this idea that sprung from the colonial era and has survived in different forms throughout our neo-colonial era in this globalized world. Is there a place for people from the so-called First World to do anything positive for people in the so-called Third World? We hear of non-profit groups in the West wanting to go “introduce” organic farming in parts of Africa for instance, despite the fact that Africans have been practicing organic farming for thousands of years. If anything, perhaps people in Africa could teach people in the West on that subject. There are, however various NGO’s and solidarity activists that arguably actually do make a positive difference in their contexts. Many of these groups are formed of people who are not only well-intentioned, but also well-informed of the contexts in which they work and are capable of showing some humility in their work. In this day and age the entire world is becoming more intertwined and interconnected on so many levels. It is worth asking how one can become a truly useful member of the global community who truly stands alongside other peoples from elsewhere in their struggles. A first step for anyone interested in such an undertaking would first examine the phenomenon of the Western Saviour Complex, question one’s assumptions about one’s own society and other society’s and their respective contexts. This article is not meant to give a solution of how to become involved globally active for Western individuals or groups but to simply examine one of the major obstacles, that is, this prevalent mentality that does more harm than anything else. There are no clear answers to the world’s problems, but if one wants to form an opinion and contribute anything positive in other parts of the world then very first step to listen to others before speaking. A little humility can indeed go a long way.
Despite the self-proclaimed ‘higher standard’ that those of us in North American society hold ourselves to, we live in a world of double standards and contradictions. Typically, an article like this would proceed to blame the apathy of voters, or the short attention span of citizens, or the general bad nature of humanity in general. While all those factors exist, I’m convinced the answer is a little less (maybe not) cynical than those who have lost faith in the good in people.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of news we digest in North America is chosen, filtered and watered-down to provide a consistent narrative of events. It is picked in order to maintain a stable flow of news that is comprehensible to the average citizen. As a result, we understand who the good guys are and of course, who the bad guys are.
A quick outline reveals that the bad guys are international terrorists, the Iranian regime and Charles Taylor, among others. The good guys: Barack Obama! NATO, ‘democratic regimes’, Israel, and Big Business-the staple of the ‘Canadian Economy’.
We are told that Occupy protesters have ‘made their point’ and need to get back to their day to day lives. Environmentalists ‘made their point’- (but we really need to streamline this environmental review process, while still maintaining fairness and equality, of course).
Most recently, those upper-middle class, spoiled Quebec students have ‘made their point’ and need to get ‘back to business’. Those advocating drug law reform, prison reform, a focus on mental health have had their input, (but private prisons and the expansion of arcane crime policies is what’s best for a ‘safer Canada’).
The fundamental disconnect between those protesting and those protesting the protesters, is that both view Canada and the world through fundamentally different lenses.
Those of the older generation seem to think that Canada, the U.S and the rest of the world will wiggle it’s way back into the normal ebbs and flow of growth and decline that that generation has enjoyed since the second world war. They read the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the National Post. Some are ‘liberal’ some are ‘conservative’; both adopt a worldview that still believes in the global system of economics, justice and global expansion.
They read headlines like “Iran supplying Syria with arms despite UN sanctions: Panel”. Once again fueling the growing push for war in the middle-east. What you don’t read about, is how the Israeli Government, with the help of the United States, actually funds a more radical Islamic terrorist group called the MeK. Using terrorists to overthrow supposed terrorists, brilliant planning!
This lack of knowledge is not the fault of the average Canadian or American. The only reason I read these websites is because a Professor gave me a list of non-North American news sites that report on the items that usually get a 250 word description at the end of the last page.
The limited ability to debate extends to all aspects of society, including banking. If you haven’t seen it already, a 12-year old girl named Victoria Grant made a speech describing how the privatization of the Bank of Canada led to the creation of unsustainable national debt.
Victoria is patronized politely by the Financial Post, explaining that it was run away spending and a refusal to pay off debts by governments that led to the disaster we are in. While the author spends the majority of the article belittling the poor girl, he only spends about two paragraphs explaining why she is wrong. On the other hand, if you would like a more detailed explanation, the Asia Time article explains how:
“The debt shot up only after 1974. That was when the Basel Committee was established by the central-bank Governors of the Group of Ten countries of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which included Canada.” The group proceeded to advocate banking that would maintain the stability of the market.A key objective of the committee was to maintain “monetary and financial stability”. To achieve that goal, the committee discouraged borrowing from a nation’s own central bank interest-free, and encouraged borrowing instead from private creditors, all in the name of “maintaining the stability of the currency.”
The presumption was that borrowing from a central bank with the power to create money on its books would inflate the money supply and prices. Borrowing from private creditors, on the other hand, was considered not to be inflationary, since it involved the recycling of pre-existing money.
What the bankers did not reveal, although they had long known it themselves, was that private banks create the money they lend just as public banks do. The difference is simply that a publicly owned bank returns the interest to the government and the community, while a privately owned bank siphons the interest into its capital account, to be re-invested at further interest, progressively drawing money out of the productive economy.
The debt curve that began its exponential rise in 1974 tilted toward the vertical in 1981, when interest rates were raised by the US. Federal Reserve to 20%. At 20% compounded annually, debt doubles in under four years. Canadian rates went as high as 22% during that period.”
While I’m not expert on central banking, I was able to discern a lot more about how Canada’s debt began to grow through the Asia Times article than the Financial Post article which assured me that I can continue to have overwhelming faith in our banking system. Canadians and Americans are simply not exposed to competing systems of thought. Whether it be foreign affairs, domestic policy, banking, etc, the scope of debate is limited by what the media chooses to focus on.
To keep the article short I’ll conclude on international law. The double standard of prosecuting ex-Liberian President Charles Taylor while making no mention of prosecuting the Bush administration remains our greatest collective failure. While Taylor, from all that we know, should have been held accountable for his actions; we ignore the atrocities and human suffering caused by the Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. This, despite the fact that they have recently been found guilty of crimes against humanity.
Yes, Charles Taylor, Kony2012, and others are people we should hold accountable. We must hold ourselves accountable for not prosecuting a government responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people.
Life is about competing narratives. More importantly, power, whether it be political, social or economic is also dependent on credible narratives. History is not dead; it is a constant battle to define and redefine what it means to be a Canadian and an American. Part of defining who we are must include an acknowledgement that we are not perfect. Part of the national identity must incorporate that we must be as self-critical as easily as we chastise dictators in Arab and African countries. What it means to be a ‘good citizen’ is not a reliance on past accomplishments; but a constant struggle to make a better, more inclusive future.
Canada’s Single Member Problem
Canadian democracy is in shambles. Concerns about an unelected Senate, centralization of power in the hands of the Prime Minister (and away from parliament), Canada’s outdated first-past-the-post electoral system, and the post-charter judicialization of politics have all undermined contemporary notions of representative democracy. Unfortunately, many problems are too difficult to change: shifts in Prime Ministerial Power would require constitutional amendment – initiated by the PM himself; even when this problem is addressed, as Paul Martin did in his declaration of Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’ in 2002, it resists change. The ‘judicialization of politics’ is arduously debated, especially in the academic realm; any proposed change would both put Canadians’ rights at risk and be political suicide for any politician ambitious enough to address the issue. Other representational issues are in fact today’s hot topics: Stephen Harper’s ‘Triple-E’ Senate is testament to that fact. However, one important facet of Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’ has been lost in the scramble. Indeed, Canada’s electoral system is akin to a thorn on Canada’s democratic rose. Moreover, because this thorn has not yet drawn blood, electoral reform has fallen to the wayside. This is not to say that electoral reform has never been debated – only that it has never been central to a national Canadian political agenda.
Adopting a mixture of American Federalism and British Westminster government in 1867, Canada has taken its electoral system for granted, and has not addressed whether it is appropriate given facets of Canadian society, such as its distinct regionalism. Indeed, Canada’s SMP system is unsuitable to Canadian society, if only for the disparity between democratic values held by Canadians and the political realities of Canada’s electoral system. The disparity here can be reduced to the difference between two terms: majority and plurality. Many Canadians would certainly be surprised to learn that a political party may win all 308 seats in parliament having received a small minority of the electorate’s votes! Theoretically, in most federal elections, parties may win each seat with only 34% of the vote share. This results from Canada’s ‘Single Member Plurality’ or ‘First-Past-the-Post’ electoral system. The SMP system divides the country into ridings – geographical segmentations of relatively equal population – which each are represented by a single member in Parliament. This member is elected by receiving the plurality of votes in a riding’s election, not a majority. In this way, Canada’s SMP system leaves electoral fortunes up to the number of parties which put forth a candidate in a given election.
Canadian regionalism further emphasizes the foibles of the SMP system. Canada’s electoral system rewards geographically and territorially concentrated support, thereby exacerbating territorially defined politics – by creating incentives for parties to play on those cleavages. This aspect of the system both undermines notions of Canadian democracy, and damages national unity. By rewarding those parties which concentrated, regional support and punishing small parties with widespread support (as they are rarely elected in concentrated ridings), the SMP system hurts Canadian democracy. It plainly distorts the representation of views held by populations of Canadians dispersed throughout the country, instead of concentrated regionally. Worse still, is that when parties win a majority of seats in one region but few in another, they are incentivised to cater to one region, thus weakening the government’s national unity.
Not only does regionalism exacerbate flaws of the SMP system, but the recent centralization of power in Canadian government does as well. I daresay that in Canada, power is vested in the minority! South of our border, the SMP system is somewhat more suitable. This is due to the fact that citizens may vote for the executive and judicial branches separately from those of the legislature, thus providing some legitimacy to their power; their two-party system for the most part ensures that one candidate receives a majority of the vote; moreover, the absence of hard party lines makes for a less powerful executive and legislative majority. However, in Canada, our fused executive/legislative ministerial government, combined with hard party lines puts enormous power in the hands of the ruling party in Parliament. Any party who achieves the majority of seats in Parliament in effect takes up the reigns of Canadian government – as bills are passed by a majority of parliamentarians, and all parliamentarians are in reality required to tow the party line.
Now, think back to the previous theoretical example of a Canadian political party winning all 308 seats with 34% of the vote. We must now take into consideration that Canadian political parties must only win 155 seats in Canada to rule – a majority of seats. Further, in recent elections voter participation in federal elections have been sitting at around 60%. Last, if we take into consideration that all electoral districts in Canada are not equal – they vary by a margin of 25% – this further aggravates the disparity. So, theoretically, a party could achieve only 8% of the total Canadian voting bloc (100% x .34 of the vote x 155/308 districts x .60 of the eligible voting population x .75 to account for differences in riding population), and in effect, govern the country unopposed. Certainly, Canadian democracy is in a perilous state if such a small minority of Canadians can gain rule over the majority! Canadian political realities make such a victory almost impossible; however, examples such as the 2000 federal election, in which the Liberal Party won the majority of seats with less than a majority of the popular vote highlight this problem.
The recent debates regarding electoral reform have risen in the context of Canada’s abysmal voter turnout in the second millennium. Indeed, those countries which have adopted proportional or semi-proportional electoral systems tend to have higher voter turnout than those who adhere to plurality systems – on average, 7% higher voter turnout. Critics accuse this relationship as being a dubious one, but it certainly cannot hurt Canada’s perilous trend of decreasing voter turnout, as swaths of Canadians avoid the polls on election day. Clearly something must be done.
Brought up time and again by those opposed to electoral reform, two central criticisms of a proportional electoral system are raised. First, that proportional systems fragment electoral outcomes – leading to unstable coalition governments. Yes, fragmentation may occur, yet this is not necessarily a negative outcome. For decades, Canada’s SMP system has tried to coalesce diverse interests into big tent parties; there is in fact no one majority which represents the electorate. Maybe what Canada does need is a more accurate representation in Parliament of the diversities among its population. Additionally, safeguards embedded within a reformed electoral system could significantly reduce fragmentation in the party system. Implementing minimum threshold percentages could reduce the appearance of small, extremist or single-issue parties; Mixed-Member Proportional systems also offer relief of these concerns. This MMP system has been adopted on varying levels by Germany, the UK and New Zealand, and involves having a portion of Parliamentarians proportionally elected through party lists, while others remain tied as single members to ridings or districts. Voters would in effect vote twice: first for the candidate which they think best represents their riding in Parliament, and second for the party list they prefer. In this way, the MMP system combats both the fragmentation issue and the criticism that proportional systems do away with direct accountability of parliamentarians to certain district populations.
With regard to those who argue that minority governments would be unstable, my response is thus: because electoral fortunes in a proportional electoral system are unlikely to see great change upon a forced election, parties would be encouraged to cooperate more efficiently, and the strict partisanship, so characteristic of Canadian politics today, would be eased.
The second concern which arises with proportional electoral systems is that proportional voting systems are complex – for both the government and the voter. These naysayers think too little of the competency of the Canadian voter. In fact, experiences from countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom or Germany do not provide evidence in support of this claim. Indeed, upon adoption, a period of voter adaptation would certainly take place, but there is no reason to believe that Canadians would have any more difficulty understanding a MMP electoral system than any other citizens. The same argument may be applied reforms to Elections Canada.
The SMP system plainly distorts the preferences of voters. In a democracy, the electoral system should attempt, wherever possible, to best represent the intentions of voters, and Canada’s electoral system fails to do so. The question which then comes to mind is: Is electoral reform even possible in Canada? For, the political party with the power to reform will no doubt have benefited from the peculiarities of Canada’s current SMP system. Although it seems unlikely, conventional wisdom would present evidence for the contrary: New Zealand, Japan and the United Kingdom at both national and sub-national levels have reformed their electoral system to more proportional models. Maybe change is possible? Recently, referenda have been brought to bear in provincial electorates regarding the introduction of the MMP system – most notably in Ontario and British Columbia. Both of these referenda did not pass – however, as noted above, turnout in these referenda were low, and the electorate were not well enough informed. Living in Ontario at the time, I witnessed firsthand the apathy which characterized this referendum. Not only is change to a MMP system a moderate reform, but it would accomplish myriad goals: making every vote count, strengthening national unity, and make government more representative of the population. Canadian democracy is flawed; the disparity between common beliefs in majoritarianism and the political reality of pluralities is assuredly large. It is about time we, as Canadians, do something about it.
Fowler: The Degradation of Mitt Romney
It should have been a walk in the park. Nine months ago I wrote on TheOpposition that, in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, “Romney has clung to a narrow but consistent lead for the past two years in public opinion polls. If nothing of note happens in the Republican primary, he should be able to piece victory together.” This has remained the underlying factor in the race for the past year, as various conservative challengers have risen to counter Romney, usually surpassing his steady 25% support, before flaming out and making way for the next. GOP challengers either refused the race or made such immediate clowns of themselves (Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and…I can’t remember the third one) that they essentially left the nomination with Romney’s name on it. However, it would be insane to say that “nothing of note” has happened in the race so far, since fears amongst the GOP establishment that the nomination fight will go all the way to the convention floor in Tampa have been growing despite Romney’s consistent lead in the delegate race. There are very few observers left who doubt that the general election will be between President Obama and Governor Romney, but this foregone conclusion comes with a caveat that was not apparent nine months ago.
Zimmerman: The NDP Leadership Race: What’s Left?
By the end of March 24th we’ll find out who is going to lead the New Democratic Party of Canada into the post-Layton age. New Democrats, having built themselves up from third (or fourth) party to the official opposition under Jack Layton’s leadership, are situated at a crucial point in not only their party’s history, but arguably in Canadian history as well. The Liberal Party of Canada, traditionally the party of power and occasional opposition status, has been beaten into a form of submission, now occupying the NDP’s more familiar place of third party status. The NDP may for the first time take power in the coming election. With the Harper Conservatives busy battling the unfolding Robocall scandal and losing the confidence of Canadian voters with each new piece of evidence brought forward, many see this as the NDP’s golden opportunity to finally govern. With Bob Rae’s generally strong leadership of the Liberals following the lackluster performances of Dion and Ignatieff nothing is quite so certain and many would argue that the result of March 24′s party vote will determine whether the NDP gets a leader who can defeat both Harper and Rae.
Let us start with the percieved frontrunner, Thomas Mulcair of the riding of Outremont. I recall back in 2007 when I had received word via cellphone from an NDP organizer at York University that Mulcair had won in a by-election on the New Democratic ticket, having defected from what is largely considered a right-leaning Quebec provincial government (and apparently having flirted with the notion of joining the Harper Conservatives). My NDP colleague at the time also stated that it would be likely that Thomas Mulcair would be the next leader of the NDP. Another NDPer I knew at the time was advocating Mulcair take over from Jack Layton and even went so far as to vote against Layton’s leadership vote at the then most current convention. In my opinion, someone who had to stop to think which party to join, particularly presented between two apparently diametrically opposed parties, the so-called Left-Wing NDP and the hard Right Harper Conservatives, should not be considered for the leadership of either party. Someone who operates in such a way clearly operates on self-interest and personal self-aggrandizement rather than authentic beliefs. Jack Layton always talked about the NDP
sticking to principles to differentiate the NDP from the Liberals. With a leader like Mulcair will that claim stick?
A website has surfaced recently entitled kNOw Mulcair that is run by anonymous members of the NDP who are concerned with his past stances. These include his actions as a Quebec Minister, including his contracting out of public sector jobs, the cutting of $103 million in student aid, among other un-progressive moves. One of the central criticisms he receives is his self-espoused ardent support for the state of Israel. I don’t want to get too wrapped up in the Middle-East right now, as I do that quite enough, particularly with regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I will say that his now famous 2008 line: “I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances” is beyond worrying. This line sounds like it could have come out of Jason Kenney’s mouth. Even supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week would never say that they support every Palestinian organization in all situations. No one in the movement, at least from my knowledge and experiences, supports Hamas or the sell-out Fateh organizations. Mulcair’s position is extreme compared to everyone but the Israel-Right-or-Wrong Conservatives under Harper. To finally see Harper’s Tories getting discredited for their own one-sided stances and scandals seems like a hollow victory for those on the Left when the NDP frontrunner has virtually the same positions when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Despite Liberal support for Israel I could not picture Bob Rae or even Michael Ignatieff saying something so irresponsible. Mulcair has since distanced himself from his past statements, invoking Jack Layton’s memory and maintaining that he supports the party’s 2-state solution policy. If this were the case I am not sure why he said he supported Israel in “all situations and all contexts” though since settlement building nullifies the possibility of a 2-state solution. It seems to me and many others that he is just saying this now in order to save face with the rank and file of the NDP which is largely sympathetic to the Palestinians. It is just talk and talk is cheap. Let me maintain the debate on the NDP leadership race though and leave the Middle-East for another day.
New Democrats on their way to vote in an Orange Cat.
On top of Mulcair’s irresponsible language and support for what is one of if not the most war-like nation on Earth, come the question of many of his backers. The NDP traditionally has been a party of the underdog, being the party of labour and the poor rather than business oriented parties like the Conservatives and the Liberals. As the party founder and father of universal healthcare always said, the NDP was the party for the mice run by the mice rather than by the two alternating parties of black cats and white cats. The party always got its support typically from below not above. When we see some of Thomas Mulcair’s donors are among Bay Street elites, including Peter Munk of Barrick Gold’s son Anthony Munk, it causes some concern. Barrick Gold has a terrible track record for environmental degradation and it causes one to question: What avowed environmentalist would take money from such a source? Why is Mulcair getting such support from such sources? This is new to the NDP. Could it be that certain corporate elites see the rising orange tide and are backing Mulcair so that there interests continue to be represented in Ottawa as opposed to the interests of the 99%? Is this the direction Canada’s Left-leaning party should really be heading to? For Bay Street backers it’s just business as usual and they are covering their asses as usual, making sure that whoever is in charge, their interests will be looked after. The party of mice may elect a cat, maybe an orange tabby cat this time. Mulcair’s bet may not pay off. He may shift the NDP to the center as he openly plans to do but it may make the party irrelevant despite the fact that his intentions are the exact opposite. If the electorate, many of whom are tired of politics as
usual, sees two virtually identical centrist parties they may opt for the one they are used to. Finally, does Mulcair and/or his supporters ever wonder if in this drive to bring the Center to the NDP that he may completely alienate the Left, that is, the “traditional base” of the NDP? We may have a Center divided between Liberals and New Democrats with no place for the Left to call its own in official partisan politics.
Upset by the focus on Mulcair another contender Paul Dewar of Ottawa has spoken out against the negativity. He uses the word “defame” to describe the criticism of Thomas Mulcair, although I fail to see the defamation. We have to remember the whole thing at the 2009 NDP Halifax Convention when people spoke of taking the ‘N’ (new) out of NDP. It seems we should be focused on maintaining the ‘D’ (democratic) in NDP. This is party democracy at its finest. We, the voters within the NDP, ought to scrutinize every candidate and have a long debate before deciding who should be the next leader. Dewar, to his credit, has taken a bottom-top approach to running the NDP. He talks of engaging people at the grassroots in communities, getting people engage in politics and making politics relevant to people’s everyday lives. This approach is completely lacking in the isolated Bubble of Ottawa where the government is typically tied to the will of capital rather than the people. Perhaps such an approach can make the NDP, and politics as a whole, relevant once more in an age where people are looking for answers beyond the official ballot box? Another theory also is that Dewar is telling everybody to keep the debate positive because he’s come under for his french, or lacktherof.
Next we come to Brian Topp. I remember early on in the race many people on the so-called more radical Left of the party saw Topp as the person to beat. Mulcair was considered an underdog at this point. Topp’s campaign has arguably gone under in the past few months though. Topp is seen as belonging to the bureaucracy and being primarily a behind-the-scenes man having won no riding of his own or had much experience as a public leader in the party. Topp has been on Mulcair’s case in debates asking the valid question of why Mulcair is so insistent on bringing the NDP to the center (or bringing the center to the NDP, same difference) when the NDP had gained the official opposition status by being the NDP rather than a party more akin to the centrist Liberals. Bravo Topp for bringing this up, but he isn’t fooling those who consider themselves as part of the Left. I mean, when we read about him praising the austerity measures of Papandreou. He’s received extensive criticism for this. The NDP Right-Wing Drift Watch discussion puts it in plain language. It’s truly flabbergasting to see someone speaking of hope and progressive solutions when he is praising the works of a leader with a 15% approval rating. In Greece the leader whose policies Mr. Topp praises is opposed by the majority of the population. Do we need solutions like austerity measures done by the NDP?
We all feel it now.
Romeo Saganash dropped out of the race so I wont go much into detail about him. He is a First Nations and the idea of a potential native Canadian Prime Minister was intriguing in itself, but of course there was much more to Saganash and his policies than just his heritage and identity. There was something interesting about Martin Singh too being a Sihk candidate, the first candidate for party leader and potentially Prime Minister (correct me if I am mistaken). Singh is a Canadian of European descent but converted to Sihkism. Aside from identity matters, both his pro-business wording and “God Bless Canada” speech finishes may have turned some off. His direct accusations of Brian Topp being a liar upset many within the party. Can you picture Paul Dewar jumping between them to stop the negativity? Some have theorized that Singh, who is widely seen as one of the less likely candidates to win, is doing Thomas Mulcair’s “dirty work”, acting like an attack dog in order for Mulcair’s campaign to appear more positive, but still cause havoc for Topp’s campaign.
Some claim Singh, expected to drop off early in the ballots, is doing the dirty work for Thomas Mulcair.
The race has two women who are playing large roles in the leadership race. Peggy Nash, Toronto Parkdale-High Park representative, has a strong labour background and ample union support. The labour credentials may lead labour-minded people within the NDP (um…would you believe there are many in the NDP?) to support her if scared off from Thomas Mulcair’s (and to some extent Topp’s) apparent Third-Wayism. Nash’s strong and open support for electoral reform is positive news for those interested in more “thinking outside the box” in regards to making democracy more directly relevant. It brings back memories to the early Jack Layton NDP years when proportional representation was one of his main stances. Nash is also more internationalists arguably, having been to many places in the world, including Palestine and Lebanon (although she never said she was an “ardent supporter” of anyone in “all circumstances” and “all situations”). Oh and she uses language from Occupy Wall Street: the 99% and the 1%. Hmmm…NDP tied to actual on-the-ground social justice movements?
Niki Ashton, partially due to her being the youngest (aged 29) although some see this as a sign that she is most connected to “our generation”, that is the one that is getting screwed right now., has been noted for her energy. Ashton has received much praise from some. She has much support from young New Democrats and some considered on the more Left edge of the party. She has also had beef with Mulcair’s campaign apparently for spreading rumours that she planned to drop out earlier in the race. Ashton and Nash are largely seen as the more left-leaning candidates, although it’s hard to say what the post-Layton political landscape will look like for the NDP. The days of the Harper Government are seeming to be numbered, but once more we can’t predict exactly what will happen here. The NDP is likely to play a large role in the coming in the future of this country, whether its as a force for real change or another disappointment (Rae?) is up in the air. What happens on March 24th will play a key role in how things play out.
Sometimes I wonder about the Liberals and if things had played out differently had they not elected Stephane Dion that fateful night back in 2006. Same with Michael Ignatieff’s coronation. What if they had gone straight to Rae who is doing ok now actually? This is particularly relevant in light of the Robocall scandal where he gets to play a leadership role as an opposition leader while a divided New Democratic Party turns to inner issues. Jack Layton once said at the end of a leadership debate (2008) to “take a deep breath and vote for us.” The NDP members can take a deep breath before March 24th. Will the NDP, no matter who ends up leading it, be one for those on “the Left” to feel justified in voting for? We’ll have to see. Some say yes, some say no, and many, like myself, say maybe.
Oh and Nathan Cullen’s also running!
Read here for his proposal!
Mackay: From Indifference to Activism
Joseph Kony, Ugandan guerrilla leader and founder of the Lord's Resistance Army, is subject of a growing movement known as KONY 2012.
For those few who have yet to see the video, the premise behind it is that the world must take action, immediately, to end the reign of Joseph Kony, a Ugandan guerrilla leader, whose organization, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA for short), seeks to kill, maim, rape, torture, and enslave Africans (specifically Ugandans in the video) in the name of God. As a video it is dangerously effective, and has gotten the attention that the organization behind the video, Invisible Children, clearly sought. Looking at this in a purely marketing sense, this video can be considered nothing short of a huge success, one that has led social media observers to point out that this may reshape social activism and finally galvanize the millions of internet users into action.
Paikin: On Iran, Canadian Leadership Needed
Laudably, the Government of Canada has unambiguously identified Iran as being a primary threat to international peace and security. Accordingly, Canada has adopted a series of sanctions against the Islamic Republic, including the invocation of the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA).
Despite these important moves, Canada’s stance on the Iranian file under the Harper government remains incomplete. Canada’s stance vis-à-vis Tehran focuses almost exclusively on the threat posed by the latter’s nuclear weapons program.
You have likely seen all the posters gracing the hallways of your university, if your student union is affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), for the past few months. The “National Day of Action” is today, and it will be a great, feel good moment fighting the good fight at Queen’s Park, forwarding the tuition revolution, and establishing solidarity with our fellow students from across the GTA. It’s an undertaking taken once a year; a ritualistic tradition with investments into it unmeasured, and a return on it nearly non-existent, for demands mediocre through all the wrong avenues towards change.
Uranowski: The Tea Party/Occupy Wall Street: The Musical
I come from a very musical family (buy my sister’s band’s EP: The Prime Minister of Cool Chicks) and musical theatre has always been a big part of my life. One of my earliest memories is seeing a production of Brigadoon at the high school my father taught music at. In high school I performed in Jesus Christ Superstar, You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown and Les Miserables, and at U of T I helped produce (and appeared in) my favourite musical of all time, Stephen Sondheim’s Into the Woods.
With my other obsession being politics I have been wanting to write about how two specific musicals, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson & Urinetown, should be watched by anyone trying to understand the Tea Party and Occupy movements in the United States. This evening I read an article on Fox News online that compared Newt Gingrich to President Andrew Jackson in a non-ironic, complimentary manner (whitewashing the fact that Newt Gingrich has never fought for his country and Andrew Jackson’s legacy of supporting slavery and wholesale slaughter of Native Americans.)
“At a time when global competition is growing and our crime rate is falling, it is smarter to invest in education than jails. – Dalton McGuinty
After two days of sessions on the economy, health care, foreign policy, the environment and evidence based policy, the 3200 delegates who attended the Liberal Party of Canada’s 2012 biennial convention arrived at Canada Hall to debate and vote on priority policy resolution.
That Sunday morning 77% of voting delegates courageously voted “Yes” to policy resolution 117. “Legalize and Regulate Marijuana.” Without hyperbole, I would argue that this has helped fundamentally transform the crime debate paradigm in Canada. Read more…
