The Definition of Democracy?

I’d like to tell you a story.

I had an email exchange with somebody who visited our website at democrat.ca. He wrote the following

Yeah, that’s sort of the idea. Then he goes on:

A fixed definition of democracy is a trap. Our opponents would say we have the definition of democracy all locked up – probably accompanied by a hidden agenda of using this definition of democracy to do our own bidding.

 
Pour traduire la page
cliquez un drapeau!

I think Reform started out on the correct path, but the further along they went it seemed like "democracy" to them was mostly "democracy for conservatives".

That’s not going to win you any elections.

Democracy … is for everyone.

The letter-writer did offer up an interesting and valid "attribute" of democracy:

So true. It’s what I keep saying when we let elected "representatives" have all the power on our behalf. There are dangers there. We’re letting them usurp our democratic rights.

Well put. The people of a nation are its greatest resource.

I’ve resisted posting simplistic, hard-and-fast definitions on the website, not to mention a lot of detailed policy, for at least a couple of reasons:

Firstly, Canadians should define the democracy they wish to live in, especially since they're paying for it all. Canadians' definition of democracy will not be universal and will occasionally change, and on particular issues their views may swing wildly from Right to Left, and back again. But the definition of democracy has to originate from them.

Secondly, if, as our Party "motto" states, we claim to trust the "fairness, wisdom and generosity" of Canadians, part of that extra credit is that we should also expect a little more from them.

We shouldn’t simply let the political class tell us what democracy is. Even worse is when those self-professed "leaders" tell us we should just give them all the power because, well, it’s "better for us".

After all, democracy is more than sitting in an easy chair, pushing a button on a remote.

When Canadians take responsibility, it will open the door to a lot more rights than those we’ll get by simply letting those in power tell Canadians what rights they’re going to let them have.

Canadians must define democracy, and then, be responsible for maintaining, renovating, deconstructing, or rebuilding it on an ongoing basis.

While there isn’t a definition of democracy on the website, we have tried to define the "Party": helping the poor, the disabled, and children and the elderly, while running government sensibly from a democratic reform point of view.

The key is how we do those things all at the same time, and I have concluded that the only way to make politicians listen to their citizens, is a dose of direct democracy, that is, Referendums and Recall.

Certainly, we shouldn't be boxed in on the Right or the Left by a majority governing Party for 4 years at a time, as we are at present. There, extremists in the government, Right or Left – and there "are" extremists both on the Right and the Left in this country – claim sole ownership of the power to resolve all of the most important issues.

I’m hoping, maybe through Canada’s "new normal" of minority governments, that one Party can someday figure out how to govern and present Canadians with the best possible legislation, no matter the party’s basic political persuasion.

I believe the majority of Canadians would support such an efficient and responsible approach and would reward that Party with enduring terms of government.

I believe that party could be the Democracy Party of Canada.

And neither do we have to wait until we are in sufficient numbers in the House of Commons. In a coalition with like-minded democratic reformers in the other parties, we can get lots done.