Hot Election Issues: are Canadians compromising too much?

While our political leaders visit town halls and craft encouraging partisan speeches, the news reports on high long-term unemployment rates, household debt at 150% of income, and increased cost of living. I am thinking if our political leaders actually cared about Canadians as they state, they would not be on campaign trails preaching change and attacking rivals with ideological discourse.

Focusing on learning passports, job creation, health care, and relatively strong economy, our politicians are painting their parties with hot issues. But as a Canadian whose lives revolve much more than mere economics, education, and healthcare, do you feel that by placing your vote on the one hot issues that matters most you are somehow compromising too much?

As we are dynamic beings constantly changing within a constantly changing world, a more comprehensive approach to politics would be smarter politics. Our leaders are not only breaking Canada into partisan fractions through constant attacks and meaningless accusations, but they are breaking Canadians’ lives into hot issues on which we weigh our votes.

Where would I rather see our political leaders today?

I don’t want Ignatieff and Harper taking turns wowing Canadians in Brampton with their respective partisan rhetoric. I do not want to see Layton encouraging his crowd at the Thunder Bay town hall to chant “down with Harper”.

Canadians are experiencing concrete needs right here, right now. Abstract rhetoric of honorable promises is nothing more than that: abstract rhetoric.

What I think we fundamentally need is for our leaders to realize that there are real needs, daily needs as Canadians go to the grocery store knowing that should they purchase what their kids are whining for they might not have enough money to purchase nutritious food. Real Canadians are now at home, unemployed, constantly searching for jobs. Real Canadians are graduating now not knowing how they will be paying their student loans without a job to step into next month. Real Canadians are now losing their homes as feeding their children and keeping their homes warm have prevented parents from being able to afford their mortgage.

Yes, our leaders are addressing these issues, but on their own and one issue at a time. So, at this point, we are stuck listening to their promises wondering which of these candidates actually mean what they claim. Can you tell for sure who will keep their promises within the timeline Canadian have until they become homeless?

What I want to see is our leaders addressing all these urgent issues together. All candidates have been raised to this potential position for a reason. Thus, if they are all capable to lead a nation, why not sit down and help Canadians by working together.

I wish all leaders would gather and debate, and brainstorm, and engage with each other as concerned leaders. No, partisanship is not too tall a wall if candidates consider themselves human beings before politicians. Canadians need them to make a sacrifice and set their partisan stubbornness and pride aside. Although some issues would be approached from mutually exclusive perspectives, where there is the possibility of a common ground for some of our economic and social problems, they need to start working together. A lot of vulnerable Canadians just cannot wait for this political charade to end.

Is one party really above others? When there are urgent needs to be addressed, partisanship games do not only withdraw available resources from where they might fundamentally be required, they forget the real material conditions of Canadians whose lives are shaped by the resolution of these very same games.

minreyes.ca

My blog has moved to minreyes.ca. 

You will find all my posts & galleries there. 

See you all there

April Street Photos

just for fun

New Westminster

New Westminster

New Westminster Public Market

Granville & Hastings, Downtown Vancouver

Gastown, Vancouver

Las Vegas

Las Vegas

Las Vegas

Commercial Street, Vancouver

Commercial Street, Vancouver

New Westminster, My City, My Life

Downtown Vancouver

Gastown Vancouver

Vancouver

Gastown Vancouver

Sinclair Vancouver

Hastings Street Vancouver

Redefining Democracy

I have put forth many times the following argument: an effective democratic system is contingent on a minimum level of economic equality. My perspective has met with a number of questions regarding my communist tendency.

To have to label an argument so quickly without time to ponder on suggestions made me think that perhaps it would be helpful to explain my perspective.

Today, I want to point out the one challenge democracy faces in attempting to materialize within the context of our Federal Election.

As Canadians cry out for democracy, as the Conservative government continuing assault on justice and transparency is reported almost at an hourly rate, the focus becomes more and more on the shortcomings of parties and their leaders and on a generally accepted definition of democracy.

Democracy in general is celebrated. We focus on defeating a government that has been found in contempt. We cry "Democracy". But what troubles me is that while we cry demanding it, we often forget it's very prerequisites. Assuming democracy will restore itself following the defeat of Stephen Harper is no only incorrect but also concerning especially when the federal election won by the opposition is considered as the ultimate victory.


This election is indeed important; the most important election since I have arrived in Canada. There are encouraging patterns emerging from the youth voters and their voices committed to democratic change. This has to be celebrated in itself as a victory, but again, not the ultimate one.


Democracy can be achieved. But in order to do so, you and I have to roll up our sleeves and start working. The real work will begin after the elections. It was a professor of mine who mentioned that democracy as a concept represent quite the difficulty in addressing real needs and change. The reason is probably that there is no democratic definition of the concept itself. He encouraged us to perhaps consider social justice as a more practical concept for social change.


Within the established electoral system and practices, there are those who are neglected, those whose voices will not be heard. Apathy is a concerning factor: people have been so disillusioned with the way politics is materialized in their daily lives that some just do not participate. But there are other Canadians who do not have the same priorities you and I enjoy in order to fully participate. Here are some and you are more than welcome to add more profiles of individuals or groups whose voices have been forgotten:


- Canadians who are working hard to make ends meet, those who are trying to escape foreclosures, those who are single parents working more than full times jobs to pay their rent, food, and heat: these people are often not aware of the election issues that are taking place. I myself was quick to judge those uninformed but I have come to realize with shame that some people just do not have the time or resources to get informed. Imagine having to work a full time job and part time positions. All the time left you have is for the family and to recover for another 16 hours of work.


- Canadians who are homeless unless they have an organization working with them are not registered voters. They lack voters information and the lack of an established address prevent them from voting. I do not see our leaders addressing them; I don't see campaigns on the streets concentrated with homelessness. 


In my perspective, these are two major groups that would definitely benefit from proactive electoral participation. Circumstances preventing them thus should be very closely studies. Then, we all come to the realization that a form of economic equality would provide the time and resources for all Canadians to democratically participate in our political arena.


POVERTY is the epitome of an undemocratic society. In order to have an effective democracy, we need to address issues of poverty at the local, regional, provincial and national level. 


We need to redefine democracy embedding within it a sense of urgency in addressing poverty and marginalization of Canadians. How can we create a society where all Canadians enjoy an established minimum level of economic equality? 


Your input is very important. Lets work for real change at our individual level. What can we do about poverty today and tomorrow. Tell me.

Below, some articles related to poverty tweeted this morning.

Report by UN agencies highlights food crisis in Democratic People's Republic of Korea http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/korea_58239.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

During Recession, Suicide Rate Is Up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/recession-suicide_n_849632.html?ir=Business

Shallow Government Response to Poverty Report, says Citizens for Public Justice http://www.cpj.ca/en/shallow-government-response-poverty-report-says-citizens-public-justice

Lack of funds threatens UN food aid to millions of vulnerable Afghans http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38119&Cr=Afghan&Cr1=

Is it time to give up?

To claim things won't change, to state that we can't make change happen, to say that the revolutionary spirit will cause physical imprisonment is to deny oneself the chance to express freedom. i do not advocate a military revolution. What i am advocating is the revolutionary spirit which will empower us with creative solutions and allow us to work through undiscriminating collaboration  with the objective to reclaiming human dignity. As the world is increasingly denying the voices of human reason while prioritizing the reason of profit and wealth accumulation by the few, you and I stand by dying as human beings. What is it that you uphold that is worth your dignity, the humanity of those people around you. I have been warned that my tweets are sometimes too radical and too revolutionary. I have been told by kind strangers that I might be closely watched or raising some powerful eyebrows :s I envy the courage to ignore the systemic violations of Canadians' rights. I don't have that courage. I do not have the courage to see my friends and family lose their homes because they cannot afford their mortgage, I do not have the strength to tell my friends' children that things will be rough for a while. 

What would it take to reclaim dignity? I don't know.

Political Party Platforms

Canadians have experienced a number of political rollercoaster rides during the last two weeks. As of today, April 10 2011, all parties have presented their platforms and Canadians are identifying shortcomings, ambiguity, and practicality of each party’s pledge to Canada. 

From my perspective, these platforms do not really act as a comprehensive blueprint for change. This might be due to my lack of knowledge in the field of economics. Having said that and having read in-depth analyses from economists, one aspect of all platforms disturbs me a little.

All party platforms lack a fundamental self-reflective examination of methodologies and inherent biases. I believe having a self-reflective approach not only gives credibility to the platforms but also allows for discussion between the parties as well as between politicians and Canadians. Of course, this is assuming that our political system is open for a meaningful dialogue on important issues.

It is my belief that having no mention on the specific processes through which these platforms were crafted leaves Canadians in the dark. First of all, how many of voters are actually able to interpret and assess the date presented by the parties. Second, platforms seem to deal only with money allocation, inherently failing to address the root causes of important issues such as poverty and inequality. The problem is answered by $xxx rather than an approach to understanding the problems from within. Targeting spending based on a comprehensive understanding of each social problem would probably be more cost effective too.

My next post will address the Media Consortium and its implications on the 2011 Federal Election.

Thank you.

Redefining Canadian Politics: implications of politics fragmented away from morality

When I was much younger, I came across a text. I don’t remember its format or purpose. But I do remember that at one point, a First Nation teenager was requested by a researcher to translate the word government into his language. The teenager replied “grandmother”.

This could have taken place almost a decade ago. And although I don’t recall the context or the article, the teenager’s answer seemed important enough to retain in my mind. It was only in time and through academia that I began to understand the implications of this answer.

In human history before modernity, knowledge and wisdom were approached more or less holistically, albeit heavily influenced by religion. The fragmentation of our experiences and knowledge into academic disciplines; and the separation between ethics, morality, and politics are all consequences of the intellectual focus on rationality from early modernity.

Today, politics is a discipline reserved for a few who have been trained in the particular art. And although there have been numerous postmodernist activists and literature that try to reclaim politics back to the individual level, the formal institutions and practitioners of politics remain unchallenged by most while being shaped and adapted by capitalist interests. 

Then, within the context of our federal election, what are the implications of politics fragmented away from morality and ethics?

Morality and ethics are in themselves battlegrounds for meaning and ideological manipulation. But consider that you and I establish a collaborative meaning for morality. You and I agree that Plato’s normative definition of morality is something we can work from: code of conduct that is put forward by a society and that is accepted as a guide to behavior by the members of that society.

When terms like morality and ethics, right and wrong, come across the political discourse, it is regrettable that they are often referred to as being subjective concepts. I think, this is where the great problem of our times lies. The focus on rationality and objectivity has within it a bias towards data that is factual, numbers, official testimonies, etc. This is why politics is heavily driven towards economy in Canada. Economy is always the answer, e.g. Child poverty will be solved through economic plans that will lower corporate taxes in order to improve job placements.

But you and I know there are better solutions, easier solutions to many problems politicians face. Apply reason but within a framework that allows you to do good, to make positive changes in the world around you. Focus on happiness, quality of life, maybe quality of leisure time.

In this election, people ask for more education funds, and more spending and investment on health care. In order to re-appropriate the political discourse to fit our needs, we need to take the discourse and turn it around and away from cold rationality based on fact sheets and numbers. We need to speak through politics of our issues in our own terms, the way we subjectively experience. Speak of your necessity to spend time with your family, speak of your difficulties working three part time jobs while having to maintain your grades to get approved for scholarship next term, speak of the way you felt the last time your store got held up, or perhaps they way you felt when the police officer was being abusive but you were too scared to report him. 

Don’t let the politician redefine what is important to you. You have your own discourse, and yours is the one that resonates with those around  you. You have a voice and a way of understanding your life from your own true perspective. Let them know. Bring politics into your life and not vice versa.

Maybe one day, when someone asks you what government means to you, your response can be “I am government”. We are all the government.