Manitoba and California's laws flouted with impunity by their leaders.

     "Manitobans have the right ... to vote on all major tax increases that affect them," Progressive Conservative Leader Brian Pallister said. "For this government to arrogantly come out and say 'no, we 37 (NDP legislature members) have more power than you 1,000,000' is wrong." This conversation occurred on April 15,  just past.  
     Of course it is wrong! That is, if you agree with the principle of democracy - the power of the people. And in our neighbouring province it seems that they had passed - a law - a law!, that says that the government must not increase taxes without the consent of the people, by way of referendum. But the government is just ignoring that law. And on July 1 Sales Tax there increased by a full one %. Understandably many Manitobans are incensed. 
     Californians have had the right since the early 1900's to initiate laws. If enough citizens sign a clearly worded petition a referendum must be held; and if it passes, that which was agreed to by a majority of the voters must become enacted into law. In 2008 52% of the citizens  said that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional in Calif. 
     A same-sex couple brought the issue to court, and a lower court judge somehow declared the vote invalid. Governor Brown announced that the state would not enforce the law, nor act on behalf of the appellants trying to uphold it. Ultimately, on June 26, just past, a majority of the judges (unelected) of  the Supreme Court of the United States (by a 5-4 decision) declared  that that court  would not uphold the law either. 
     The prestigious Economist magazine in its July 6 edition asked - does that decision threaten the idea of Direct Democracy in United States? Well, clearly it does. Some 20 other states of the United States have, through citizens'  referendums, deemed same-sex marriages performed in their states illegal.  What other laws might be ignored with impunity by governors or premiers, or others, although  passed by citizens through proper referendums? 
     Manitobans and Californians, and citizens in other jurisdictions must look upon these decisions by our autocratic leaders with great concern. With democracy being even more important in this age of instant communication, and potential anarchy on the horizon almost everywhere,  must we try even harder to enforce the rights of the citizens in our favoured form of government - the democracy; - or we will, for sure, lose its value  even more completely !  Our laws could mean virtually nothing, except what the deemed leaders decide they should be.  Worried?  You should be! 
     


     

How much is Egypt like California?

     Such terrible difficulties we seem to be  having in making democracy work. Egypt is a particular example. I  visited that country of 84 million people in 2010, the summer before its violent revolution cut down the dictator Mubarack  (I was in no way responsible for that, let me assure you). That  was then followed by an organized and  much worked upon constitution and election.  A leader, Mr. Morsi,  was elected by 51% of the electorate. Democracy seemed to be happening.  And, then within one year he is   replaced by an angry mob, and the army has now taken over.  He definitely was not perfect, and as head of the major Islamic party, did try to implement processes not exactly appropriate to a secular state. But, at any rate democracy certainly is not showing much improvement in Egypt, over the previous state of affairs, run by an army-supported dictator.
     Then there is the once democratic state of California. Since the early 1900's it has often seen laws passed as a result of referendums by the citizenry. It has within it  one of the strongest economies in the world (bigger than all but 4 or 5 countries).  It obviously has been doing some things well over that time.
     But recently a major democratic decision has not only been counter-manded by the governor  Brown, but also by the Supreme Court of the United States. I am talking about the twice initiated and passed referendums by the citizens there to disallow same-sex marriage. The one in 2008 passed by over 52% of the citizens. But, someone appealed the decision to the courts, and for poorly expressed reasons the state court  agreed with the appeal. However,   governor Brown would not enforce the citizen's decision, nor support the effort to pursue the appeal further. And so on June 25, the unelected Supreme Court of the United States, by 5-4 decided what? It simply stated that the appellants of the minor court decision had no status, if the state itself was not a party to the effort. And so, they have not exactly said that the citizens were wrong   by a majority to  go against the same-sex marriage idea (as has some 20 other states). But in no manner were the majority assisted in their effort to make that new type of marriage improper. Normally democracy means - the clearly expressed will of the majority.
     But,  neither in Egypt nor in the United States can we see that idea being well expressed, in this modern day and time.     Such blows to democracy!