Blueprint for a New Political System -Part 1- Sponser This!
Tommorrow was pay day, so his relevation for a new Canadian political system would have to wait. O Canada! Your system is lacking!
Honest hard working people are drained of their worth to fuel a machine that is way out-dated; which becomes increasingly less efficient and yet more expensive. The middleclass loses ground daily, and the huge abyss left between the rich and poor is quickly filled by arrogance. We are not calculated for our worth, but rather controlled by minimizing what we have left over, so we have to work to an old age. Laws are imposed on us that do not reflect the majority, nor do they give heed to the lives or livlihoods they destroy. Somewhere we stopped being governed and started being ruled. The trust we give our leaders is now assumed by them, and they don't even care about the myriad of occassions where they abash their own credibility.
If the money from the sponsership scandal would have been in the hands of capable governing, that money might have gone to save those that died from exposure because they were going through hard times. And really, we hear about the ones who get caught, not those that get away with corruption.
Don't think I'm am a rebel. I love Canada, I love the people and society; I like our system...but it needs to be updated. I don't want to burn for my words, but as a citizen of a country that is supposed to be free, I would feel neglect if I didn't offer my insights.
The illnesses don't only plague our system, but every first world country. After all, Canada's parliamentary system is modelled after Britains' , just as Australias' and other Common Wealth countries. American influence is felt everywhere but more-so in Canada, being neighbours. (A quick note on that- it should be noted that the American system is effective for unifying a great number of people, where-as our system causes dissention and we have much less people)
With the revolution of the global market, the entire first world is reeling from corporate influences unfelt in human history.
If we want to be a corporation with just a few benefitting, then our system is okay...for now...until too many people get pushed out of the inner circle and the dissention grows...or we find we can't sustain our sytem because it has become too imbued with inefficiency and corruption... or we can't compete in the global market and as people we aren't an asset to a corporation, so we're left to starve........but if we want to be a country, made of people, we have to re-assess our system, find out where the problems are, correct them, and carry on.
It would seem one important lesson from the twentieth century is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have tried to deal with this by removing dictorships such as Idi Amin, Hitler, and Hussein. Their demise meant freedom for people from oppression. The move from imperialism to a parliamentary system that swept the world saw us trying to displace a centralized power to a more equitible, broader base. So it would seem the trend is to steer away from elite leadership, but the door is always left open for greed and ambition to make its way to the top. Ambition is not a bad thing, but if the ambition is displaced it could be. Indeed, our structure is such that the highest position attainable (Prime Minister) is greatly respected, and therefore noble to pursue. As long as the definition of that position remains true, it is a noble pursuit, but if the definition becomes a smoke screen for what the position actually is, then the system itself is gimped.
I was just being sarcastic about whether we want to be run by a corporation or be run by people. Of course the majority of us feel the best way to govern people is by being represented by people, but if that idea is tainted, and the leadership starts representing corporate interests instead of the peoples, then the system itself is gimped.
So it would seem the first logical step would be to remove the ability of the leadership to represent anything else besides its' intended office. This could be accomplished by making all goverment branches, such as the Ministry of Transportation, a neutral, non-political arena. I realize that it is supposed to be already, but patronage has been an issue in the past and continues to be with increasing boldness. (Look at the example with FIMA and the New Orleans disaster in the US) The problem lies with the political connections to the office. For example: the liberal party wins a majority and appoints the winner of the Kaupacang riding as the Minister of Transportation. Even though there aren't complex city infrastructures in the Kaupacang area, his/her liberal laurels got him/her the position. He/she, in turn, surrounds themself with people they know they can trust, some less competant then themself.
And so on, down the line.
If we voted for a person for the office, then their credentials would allow them to step into a neutral position much easier. To elaborate: There is an election, and Jan Jones from Bruce Mines is running for the position of the Minister for Finance. Her economic brilliance has shone throughout her career, beginning with top marks in university. She's running against Dave Dewly from Dain City, who has excellant credentials as well. In fact, everyone running seems capable. Jan wins, and steps into her office with non-political aspirations. She has to prove her abilities while in office, to ensure a chance in the next elections for her as well as the party which represented her. Her victory was sponsored by the liberal party, and they backed her for her credentials. For their support, her victory entitles them to a seat in the senate, where they can seat the slickest polititian they can muster. (It's okay, it's the proper arena for them.)
The senate would be responsible for 50% of the decision making. The other 50% would come from either an internet or intranet presence which would allow all citizens to cast a vote for any issue; whether it be local, provincial or federal. So if your a farmer in Saskatchewan, and you're concerned about rising insurance rates for your crops, as a citizen, you can initialize a vote. You are offered a space on the web to present your case, as is any opponents you may have. If there are enough other people who feel the same way as you do, it can be carried to the appropriate level of government, whether it's local, provincial, or federal. The issue is then presented as a vote, and the outcome worth 50% of the decision. The other half is then presented to either the provincial or federal senates or local councillors, (deepending on its level classification) They vote on the issue, and their result is added to the citizen vote. So if the citizen vote was 40% yeh, 60% nay, and the senate vote was 30% yeah, 70% nay, the result would be 35% yeh, 65% nay. It's not as if everyone has to sit around keeping tabs of every little issue to vote on, but they will have a choice when it's something that concerns them. So the farmer in Saskatchewan actually has a chance at quelching the approval to Insurance Companies for a rate hike. As well, it would add a much needed humanitarian touch to our system.
So the vote goes forward on-line and all those citizens that are concerned can vote on it. The employees of those companies concerned can also vote, but the company can't. If it is important enough to them, they can present their case to a senetor, and get more votes there. Their individual votes combined with the senate votes might be enough to carry their concerns, but if enough people feel strongly enough about the opposing vote, it probably won't.
It seems a truer democracy, and if we want to remain a democracy, perhaps we have to up-date it with the modern tools that have become available to us.