Collective Bargaining for Canadian Voters

Well, democracy is like collective bargaining for citizens, voters and taxpayers.

Voting is the chance for each one of us, collectively, to state our opinions in a manner that "must" be listened to. Far more than any "poll", our vote has to be taken seriously. It’s always 100 percent accurate, compared to even the biggest poll’s 19 times out of 21, plus or minus 4 percent.

Now, we might not necessarily get our way if we’re on the losing side of a vote – but it cannot be ignored and at least we had the chance to have our say. It’s just one of those crazy little things about democracy – from the Prime Minister to the Chief Street Sweeper: one person, one vote.

 
Pour traduire la page
cliquez un drapeau!

But the analogy of democracy and collective bargaining is a good one. Democracy empowers voters who are, frankly, in a weak or vulnerable position and it gives them weight as a group to take on the otherwise overwhelming power of "the bosses" or "the politicians".

And this collective bargaining for citizens has actually been around for a long time. The Greeks initiated the idea over two thousand years ago.

It’s just that there are always powerful interests out there that are attacking democracy and seeking to water it down. People – sometimes they’re called "intellectuals", sometimes they’re called "revolutionaries" – regularly come along with a great idea for fixing the political system that, when analyzed, is recognized as that old standard-bearer, "democracy".

It’s a long-standing tug-of-war. Democracy has to keep being renovated, reinvented or rediscovered.

Interestingly, the people who attack democracy may not do it overtly – in fact, the most successful attrition against democracy is well under the radar – but the result is the same as a full-on frontal attack.

Democracy may be easy to defend when its attackers use guns or abuse human rights, but it may actually face a tougher battle in our modern, prosperous society, even where "human rights" is constantly on everyone’s lips!

Why? Because conveniences, lots of T.V., lots of social benefits, and even a "Charter of Rights" are great, but in themselves they don’t give us greater political freedom. In Canada, we’re sorely deficient in that department, yet you need political freedom, and power, to truly control your destiny.

In fact, in a vigorous, uncorrupted democracy we probably wouldn’t even need a Charter of Rights. A Charter’s a cool thing to have, but in itself it doesn’t provide the political liberties and power we need and deserve. For those, we need something else.

So let’s look at how democracy’s flagship event, the general election, and also "direct democracy" such as referendums, are like collective bargaining for the citizens of this country.

We’re all familiar with how protests, "knowing somebody powerful", and the Charter of Rights can help groups and individuals "get their way". But nothing – no court, no tribunal, no Prime Minister – can ignore the power of the vote. The vote surmounts everything.

You know that I’m sold on the value of direct democracy, but from the municipal to the federal, throughout grassroots initiatives over many years, Canadians have shown lots of interest in expanding democracy to include direct democracy. The reason it’s not already used everywhere is probably due to the fact the right legal, consistent "formula" and procedures haven’t yet been devised that Canadians would be happy with.

You know we’ve had a few national and provincial referendums in this country, so obviously the legal foundation is already there.

But can it be expanded to direct democracy, or is this stuff rocket science that would never fit in here? Is it something you’d only find on Neptune? Is there even a single, existing legal authority for M.P. recall, citizen’s initiatives, plebiscites, ballot propositions and "referendums" – what I’m calling "collective bargaining" for voters?

In fact, Recall and Referendums could very easily become part of the fabric of the Canadian system of democracy.

And the high authority that I would quote for this possibility? None other than the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let me explain.

Several years ago, the Clarity Act reference to the Supreme Court compelled Canada’s top judges to deal with one particularly difficult issue: Just how could Canada be split asunder by another referendum in Quebec. What would be the process?

They stated, emphatically, it could happen – but added it would have to be with a clear super-majority vote [60% majority on 60% turnout] on a clear question!

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court of Canada – perhaps unintentionally – has completely legitimized direct democracy as a way to help ordinary Canadians decide major issues in this country.

Because how much of a stretch would it be to say that, if the country can be split apart by a referendum – and according to the Supreme Court "here’s how to do it" – why can't the people of Canada debate major new spending initiatives, or new human rights with all their consequences, or international conflicts that beckon our contribution or that we should avoid at all costs?

All we need to take us there is a supplement to the existing law that enables only government to initiate referendums.

We shouldn’t have to wait for government to initiate. After all, letting them have that exclusive privilege, when sometimes they’re the problem that needs fixing, is like letting the wolf mind the sheep.

Canadian citizens need the right to Initiative so that they can trigger that direct say in the major changes that internal and external forces bring to bear in our country.

The Democracy Party of Canada offers many guidelines for M.P. Recall and referendums that can be initiated by ordinary citizens. They include the use of super-majorities to decide the outcome, as recommended by the Supreme Court in the Clarity Act. These and other strict guidelines will filter out the frivolous and vexatious use of direct democracy.

The Supreme Court has ruled! Against that, who can tell us that our ideas are foreign concepts with no merit? The current political class and the interest groups?

Once you do, I really don’t think politicians will have anything to say about it!