Democracy is nowhere to be found within this election

The 2011 Federal Election truly reflects the disconnect between Canadians and the political parties.

Obviously, with the breakdown of the Conservative government, Canada had a wake up call. Since then, the cries for democracy both from political parties and the public have dominated the political discourse.

Yesterday, the broadcast consortium shut Green Party Leader Elizabeth May out of the televised leaders debate. So, here is that first slap on democracy’s face. But now, we are facing a second possible assault on democracy: a one-on-one televised debate between Harper and Ignatieff. I understand that this might take place after the leaders debate; however, just the very suggestion of such two-party debate is more than politically dangerous.

The problem I see is this: all parties should be constitutionally equal in terms of the presentation of their policies and ideas to the public. This is besides the electoral advertising campaign (Conservative spending for which is being now investigated by RCMP, which by the way does not come up as an issue during THIS election).

By having a one-on-one debate, not only are alternative parties shut out of public discourse, but places the Conservative and Liberal Parties upon pedestals while undermining the legitimacy of other parties. This is particularly concerning to me; the two “major” parties have similar policies and ignore many issues that need to be debated for this election to be truly transparent and democratic.

Democracy is nowhere to be found within this election.

The way I see it, Canada is no longer democratic. The Canadian political structure is built by layers upon layers of undemocratic political parties, policies, priorities, and media practices. To attempt to restore democracy at this stage in our history requires a method of critical analysis similar as those by Marx and even Freud, the Masters of Suspicion. A task that might take years by the most celebrated academics.

What I see is a dictatorship run by a powerful few, a strong web of interconnected network of interests:

Why does the broadcast consortium deny the voice of the Green Party? What are the interests the broadcast consortium is protecting? What issues is the broadcast consortium attempting to avoid from reaching the public discourse? 

Whose interests would a one-on-one televised debate between Harper and Ignatieff serve? Why is this two-party debate even being considered? What are the political and social implications of this two-party debate? What issues would be left out should this debate take place legitimizing only two parties while undermining the legitimacy of alternative parties?

Canada deserves a democracy, but as in many areas in the world, democracy is not a gift. It needs to be fought for. And in order to restore it, Canadians are required to ask these fundamental questions…

Street Photography

Birks, Downtown Vancouver

Harper: if you reiterate something long and loud enough, it shall become true... NOT

Harper’s continuous disapproval of the idea of a coalition government reflects the character of the Conservative party: if you repeat something long and loud enough, it shall become true…

As often portrayed in the interactions between the parties in the House of Commons, Harper’s commitment to an idea that does not seem to follow any form of logic, by virtue of repetition, seems to give itself a raison d’etre.

The question that voters should be asking themselves is “What would have Stephen Harper and his government done to attack our democratic rights? Now Harper, shamelessly counting on the assumed apathy of Canadians, has the audacity to ask for a majority demonizing the concept of coalition.

What would be more democratic than a coalition government? What is wrong with a coalition of leaders that are required by the constitution to work together? When did Canada lose its sense of community? Why should the concept of community and working together for a greater goal be demonized and radicalized as communism. Can Harper even define the concept of communism?

Canadians are proud citizens. And as such, we have all the rights to logically demand our political community to work together. No one party will ever be perfect. Then, why not a coalition? Think of it in terms of our daily lives, or common sense: aren't two minds better than one? Aren't three minds better than two? Isn't collaboration a truly Canadian value?

Harper and Ignatieff, leaders who want to break away from having to work with others, leaders who think that diversity of ideas are politically dangerous, cannot be said to promote democracy. Thus, Democracy has no place for them.

It is unfortunate enough that the leader of a government that has been dissolved due to its undemocratic Parliamentary processes and the questionable ethics of its members should seek now a majority government, but now he aims at discrediting and demonizing truly democratic ideas. But the more he tries, the more transparent in his practices he becomes.

No Mr. Harper, reiterating something long and loud enough, does not automatically materialize your statement. 

Street Photography: Picture of the Week

Sinclair Centre, Downtown Vancouver

For more images, check my online portfolio

Incognito

24" x 18"

acrylic on canvas

2011 Federal Election: Liberals & Conservatives more similar than they care to admit

It is now official, the Canadian federal election campaigns began yesterday; Canadians will go to the polls in a Federal election on May 2.

While Harper's campaign focuses on the the stability of his government and the success of the Conservative Economic Action Plan, Harper's desperate attempt to delegitimize a possible coalition between the Liberals, the Bloc, and NDP has met accusations of hypocrisy, again, bringing his credibility into question. 

As expected, Ignatieff launched his campaign strongly waging a political vendetta against Harper and the Conservative undemocratic regime. "For five years, Stephen Harper has abused his power. He is out of touch and out of control". 

While Ignatieff attacks Harper's politics of fear and division, Ignatieff applies the same strategy in Montreal. Ignatieff reveals a sense of narcissistic egotism.His message is clear: a vote for the Bloc will surely result a step closer for the Conservatives to regain their position in government. 

More often than not, Harper and Ignatieff seem to mirror one another. Similarities between them are much more pronounced than they care to admit. 

Conservatives and Liberals although ideologically opposed, materialize a dangerous form of political and partisan fetishism while the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP are still open to work together in building a better society.

Perhaps, we should explore the idea of a coalition government. Canada's lack of extensive experience with coalition governments not only provides a chance to examine the possibility for parties working together but also provides an opportunity to reshape a government structure that reflects the changes that are taking place within our national and global societies. As times change, so do political priorities. As political priorities are dictated both by internal and external factors, this marks a great opportunity to build an alternative structural model of government that is more representative, more democratic, and committed to providing more creative solutions national and global challenges Canadians face.

2011 Federal Budget: No Negotiation: Monologic Political Discourse

Yesterday, the Federal Budget, which we have all been waiting for, was finally presented.

The Liberals rejected the budget and stated that the Conservative budget does not reflect the appropriate priorities of Canadians. Budget rejected.

The Bloc Quebecois also rejected the budget; it did not deliver on the Bloc’s expectations and Conservative promises. Budget rejected.

The New Democrats stated that the budget did not deliver on their requests. Jack Layton however seemed to have left an open door for possible further amendments to the budget. Budget rejected in its presented form.

After everything has been said and done, Flaherty states that the budget is not up for negotiation. What is wrong with this picture? Yes, there might have been election strategies incorporated into the budget by the Conservatives. But setting the elections aside, what really is wrong with this whole budget issue?

I understand the debates that took place yesterday among the parties as revolving around a form of communication that is not open for dialogue. When the main focus of any debate is that of winning and/or losing, all parties lose; and we all lose.

When generally listening to the political rhetoric as they take place in the House of Commons and on the media, one can identify a lack of dialogue between political parties. There is no meaningful engagement of politicians on issues that matter to all Canadians. Most often the rhetoric is located outside of the context within which it needs to find itself. Partisanship is often prioritized above the context of Canadian lives.

There are issues on which all parties could be argued to find agreement and meaning: economy, social welfare, etc. These same political issues, rather than becoming arenas for dialogue and communication, have become boundaries and structures for isolation and tools for undemocratic monologues.

Partisanship is so deeply embedded within the daily political discourse that meaningful understanding becomes a rarity. There are four major partisan voices that dominate the political sphere. But to each voice there are only one perspective, one ideology, one meaning.

During a course on Everyday Communication, I came across an author and theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975), who claims that a monologic or one-voice discourse tends to recognize only itself and its object, is a form of discourse that does not recognize other people’s words nor alternative perspectives (Bakhtin, 1963). I assume that I can identify each voice of each party as a monologic discourse not open for communication.

What would be an obvious attempt to a resolution about issues all parties consider important?

As Bakhtin identifies that flaws of a monologic discourse, he has also provided an alternative: dialogic discourse, which I understood ass a process through which one tests one’s own ideas and perspectives through the active engagement in dialogue with another. This process is an ongoing process of understanding from which one’s perspective will never remain the same but rather is constantly transformed through communication, negotiation, and active attempt to understanding.

So in a word: Dialogue.

In the public and political sphere, leaders who use phrases such as “not open for negotiation” reflect a particular ideology. A true democratic society begins with leaders who apply democratic processes within their own acts of communication.

We hear all parties yell out words such as healthcare, middle class, employment and economy. And yes, all political parties might have allocated resources to these issues. But where I see a disconnection is perhaps in truly understanding the issues themselves. It is no longer about the specific dollar allocation. It is about sitting down and coming up with workable definitions for each and every major issue that affect Canadians. How can we determine and agree on a budget where the definitions of issues have never been negotiated? 

Canadian Politics Reflecting Anarchism

Now in 2011, we are again, flirting with the idea of having yet another chance to determine our lives through a federal election. But as voters turn out decreases with increasing citizen apathy, the political debates of our time are left merely to those who are willing to play the nasty political game.

Maybe politicians know this. Maybe the once elected government celebrates this. Or perhaps, the government just does not care. Of course, at the blurry sight of another election, the leading opposition party depends on its ability to discredit the present government and senses an urgency to encourage all those frustrated at the state of affairs to be ready to vote for change.

I see a sense of fetishism happening around the understanding of politics and government policies and procedures. Watching Question Period I've learned that the present government represents one and only one voice. It does not matter who is responding to any given question nor what the issue being addressed is, the government's answer is one and only one, just one unified voice. It does not matter how many times one rephrases the question in order to get a relevant response, again, I hear the same answer phrased in exactly the same way it was a couple of seconds ago.

I particularly remember when Ignatieff asked Harper about corporate tax cuts. Harper’s answer revolved around the idea that the government has made, in numerous cases, very clear that corporate tax cuts are good for the economy. When faced again by Ignatieff regarding the social and economic costs of these tax cuts, Harper again responded the exactly same way, without acknowledging the different nature of the question. My initial reaction was that of shock: did Harper just ignored this question and repeated himself? Is he deaf? Is he dim? Of course, in the course of days that followed and the resulting increasing awareness of these proceedings made me conclude that overlooking specifics and providing vague answers are actually strategies that are so deeply embedded in these processes of what we consider democracy.

The more I listen and watch parliamentary proceedings and the many politicians that are supposed to represent us, the more I believe that the Canadian federal rhetoric of political debate materializes painfully as a kind of mockery of democracy and those who have faith in it.

Honestly, I am not sure about what the political sphere was like even 5 years ago. Back then, I thought politics did not matter to my well being and my ability to succeed in life. It was only somewhat recently that things happened and things have made themselves clear as I grew older. My professors and courses at SFU made the greatest contributions on how I developed as a well-rounded human being, no longer focused on myself alone, no longer as an individual but rather as part and parcel of a system to which I had no choice but to belong as long as I breathe.

Since I learned I could never escape the system, I figured I will participate in it by learning all there is to learn about Canadian politics. I started with the government website and slowly worked my way to individual Members of Parliament. To my amusement, when it was time to read about John Baird, news media were referring to him as an aggressive pitbull “feisty, lippy, occasionally foul-mouthed…red meat-eating Conservative ideologue” (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/675054).

Listen to the yelling, the personal and political attacks that fly across Parliament. Listen to the sarcasm, the nasty comments, the never-ending accusations, the personal attacks, the generalizations, and the lies. This is our political discourse at its federal level. It reminds me of children fighting and pointing fingers at each other. As opposed to what Harper thinks, I think in this form of child’s pay/fight, there are no winners. We all lose. Is there no rational and decent form of dialogue in federal government? Are our representatives really nothing more than self-indulging, self-aggrandizing, legalized anarchists?

Facing the UN resolution to impose a NFZ over Libya, the Canadian government states that it is important to protect the citizens of Libya from the tyranny of Gadhafi. We send military assistance along other nations to protect the human rights of Libyans. This is a great move, and stance against undemocratic “regimes” is brave and courageous. Too bad this reflects the hypocritical nature of our government. Who is now protecting us from the tyranny of the Harper regime? Actually, let me rephrase: is the political discourse of federal government, lacking any form of reason and rationality; having lost its sense of morality, humanity, ethics; ignorant of processes of dialogue and accountability; a truly democratic political sphere within which Canadians can actively participate?

Attack Ads

Today, the Canadian Green Party launched its attack ad on political parties attack ads aiming to "change the channel" (read full article on Green Party ads aim to 'change the channel').

CBC Power and Politics' (I am a regular follower of the show) question of the day was "Should political attack ads be banned?".

Well this got me thinking and here are my thoughts...

Political election ad campaigns are necessary in our society as it is today (it doesn't have to be) although I would strongly disagree with attack ads. A number of attack ads we have so far been bombarded with are not only unnecessary but libelous.

Here is my concern regarding political election attack ads, first and foremost, attack ads do not present a reasonable form of debate citizens have the right to witness. Attack ads tend to depoliticize the important issues these parties need to be addressing and focus merely on negative spins of their opponents. If political parties want to attack one another on personal and irrelevant matters, of course they should be able to, but it just seem a decent request to have them outside of public media. These kind of attack ads are insulting to the public they are intend to serve.

Second, the idea that we even need political election ad campaigns needs critical analysis which brings into question the roles of the media and the government and their relationship.

If the government and political parties are appropriately held accountable through the media (news media in particular as the supposed watchdogs) and citizens are informed on the issues that make into the political agenda on a daily basis, I don't see why there would be a need for election ad campaigns. The people of a democratic nation are supposed to be provided with the daily ingredients of issues and matters in the political, social, economic, and cultural debates through their governments and the media. 

If you follow the news as I religiously do, then, you know you are wasting your time. The repetitive rhetoric of the conservatives is sickening. There is no reasonable debate during the question period we have access to. The broadcast of the question period provides embarrassment to those of us who cannot believe that essential issues are fought and argued for and against by people who just do not even seem to be able to hold a simple conversation. It is like watching kids placing blame on each other in order to get away with their mistakes or stubborn beliefs.  The sense of dialogue and building up to a reasonable discussion is simply absent in our political leaders. 

Yes, I am disturbed by all this, and many other political and social issues. I think it is time to start demanding from our political leaders more respect and reasonable answers... 

I will get to the election fraud, the Oda & Kenney's scandal maybe tomorrow...