Ed Goertzen:
> Regarding the image of "terrorists against capitalism" that has been
> portrayed in the mass (read propaganda) media, a recent panel on TV with
> the editors of the major mass media arrayed against spokespersons for the
> "terorists" was able to clearly expose the very biased editorial and
> reporting stance of the mass media. The editors could not answer the
> questions posed. Seattle etc., was only reported for the purpose that
> "violence sell advertising."
> A major question was asked of the many "terrorists" and that was, "how
many
> of you are against trade per se?"
>
> There was not a single hand raised!
I regularly watch "Counterspin" a very good program on the CBC's news
channel. The format is a panel discussion, hosted by Avi Lewis, followed by
audience participation. The discussion a couple of days ago was on the
Summit of the Americans, to be held in Quebec City in April.
One of the panel members was a young woman who will be going to Quebec City.
Many of the people in the audience were young people, students mainly, who
will also go to Quebec City. What struck me about these people was their
absolute certainty of the rightness of their cause. All of them opposed the
summit; all of them were against the extension of a NAFTA type arrangement
to all of the Americas (Cuba excepted, of course). When asked to give
reasons for their opposition, they really couldn't come up with many that
made sense. Increasingly, the young woman on the panel sounded as though
she was preaching a sermon to the converted -- a sermon to true believers.
I found it rather frightening. It made me wonder why the kids are so
opposed, so angry.
Wnen in Quebec City, these kids won't commit acts of violence, but some
people will, giving the police an excuse to erect their fences and other
barriers, perhaps to use pepper spray and even tear gas. But I keep
wondering why all of this is necessary. What do the kids think they know
that the rest of us don't? What do they think is being taken away from
them?
> I recently had occasion to see the constitution of a political party and
> realised that political partys have perpetrated a hoax on the electorate.
> Supported by the media, the political parties propaganda model is that "we
> vote for and elect people to government." That is not democracy!
> Democracy is when the people elect to congress, or the commons, those
whose
> task is to "permit" through legislation the "rulers" to Act, constrained
by
> limitations written into the legislation (and budgeted) by which we
"govern
> ourselves"
>
> In Canada at least, we are conveting increasinly to the US model, without
> the constitutional constraints of separation of powers.
> The result is that, with the assist of the media, we elect a leader (PM),
> with a team (Cabinet) and supporting members of a "governing party" that
> inclusively becomes the "ruler" of Canada, authorised to impose an agenda
> untill the next election, sans meaningful opposition.
You're quite right that we don't have the checks and balances that the US
has. But we do have the Charter or Rights and Freedoms and we do have the
courts. Still you do have a point. I read something very persuasive
recently that argued that far too much power in Canada is now concentrated
in the Prime Minister's office and in the Privy Council Offices, the
secretariate of the Cabinet.
> Our elected representatioves have to be brought under control. If
democracy
> stops once a person is elected, then that person and his/her pears are out
> of control. The only way to control them is to obtain leadership within
the
> community that will speak with credibility on behalf of the consesnsus of
> the community. That community being those who are reasonably well and
> sufficiently well informed to support and guide the elected representative
> in the discharge of his/her duties.
The problem, as I see it, is that the community has very little influence on
the centres of power. We think that, by electing a representatives, we are
buying a share in a democratic system of power. We are doing that, but
depending on who we elect, the size of that share can vary enormously. If
we elect a member of Cabinet, we have someone who can speak for us with
considerable power, if he or she is willing to listen to us. If we elect a
backbencher or a member of the opposition, we probably don't have much of a
voice at all even if, as is more likely, he or she is willing to listen.
Another factor is that a politician's loyalty is, first and foremost, to his
or her party. A politician can disagree with his or her leaders in caucus,
but would be foolish to do so in public.
Perhaps it is the unrepresentativeness, and increasing irrelevance, of
current democratic politics that the kids are sensing. Perhaps that is why
they are so angry. But we don't have to worry. Like the kids of the
sixties, they'll soon be middle aged defenders of the status quo.
Good to hear from you. Best regards. And remember: Two eds are better than
one!
Ed Weick
