I posted the following a few days ago and got no response. I'm posting again because I think the question I raise at the end of the original posting is an important one.
Ed We tend to see societies like Canada and the US as liberal and democratic and responsive to the general public. But is that how they really operate? Are political parties really open and responsive to the public at large or are they corporate entities doing what they have to in order to promote themselves in seeking and maintaining power? Do they really hold the interests of the public as primary or do they largely behave in their self-interest? When they show themselves to the public, are they showing their true and honest selves, or are they behaving like soap adds on TV? Hey, look, there's Harper playing piano and singing a Beatles' song at the NAC. Gee, he's a nice open guy after all, not someone who's closeted away from scrutiny at the PMO. IMHO, it's no better than selling soap. And one also has to think about the complex linkages that exist between the political and corporate sectors. Lobbying, getting the political sector to do what the corporate sector wants, has become a major industry -- invisible to the public but enormously powerful. Consider health care reform in the US, beneficial to the general public but potentially very harmful to the health insurance industry. So send in the lobbyists to make sure it doesn't emerge as something that threatens corporate power and profitability and doesn't do much for the public either. Who really governs us? And what really is ethical behaviour when it comes to government and the corporate sector? I think the question is particularly relevant in light of the recent invasion of the House of Commons by young people who were very concerned about the lack of a firm government stance on what to do about climate change. Given that the December conference on this issue and the government doing little more than politely trading insults with the opposition during question period, were the kids right in invading the sacred space of the politicians? I tend to think they were. How else could they get their point across? While the politicians regard the House of Commons as sacredly theirs, who really does it belong to? Might not arrangements be made to let members of the public in to make their case directly instead of making them have to shout from the gallery and be dragged out? And I know the committee system exists, but it too tends to slow, cumbersome and exclusive, used most often to shed darkness instead of light. Ed encore
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
