Wednesday, March 30, 2011
BC Referendum going ahead
The citizens of B.C. are having their say! In June there will be distributed, by mail, to all citizens, ballots along with the pros and cons about the controversial HST tax instituted behind their backs by the current B.C. government. This has been a long time in coming, but due to stupendous efforts by former premier Bill Van der Zalm. He and a huge bunch of helpers were required to gather up signed petitions from ten% of citizens in all the 90 or so ridings of B.C. to fulfill the daunting requirements of the Direct Democracy law passed in the late '90s. Under that law the government was supposed to put an issue upon a province-wide referendum, if such a petition was submitted to it. Somehow, over 600,000 names were obtained, well beyond the required threshold. But, the government was very slow to react. A court case, which was unsuccessful, was even brought by unhappy businesses. VanderZalm had to threaten to commence actions of his own to decertify a sitting member or two - before the government caved in to the wishes of their citizens. It will be interesting now to see the results of such a referendum. No other province has such laws yet, permitting a say on issues by their citizens.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Malta Referendum
In this day of mounting, international discussions and even revolutions about Democracy, it is refreshing to see true Direct Democracy being employed more and more often, that is - via citizen approved referendums.
Even in tiny Malta is it about to consider an important issue by a referendum.
This is over the rather important question of - Divorce.
It is currently only one of two countries that does not allow divorce. The other is apparently The Philippines.
Both are strong Roman Catholic countries which have resisted this now unfortunately common manner of concluding a marriage.
The referendum was introduced by the government - not petitioned by the people, but the principle does follow - the people are being asked to decide an issue.
Is divorce to be allowable after a four year separation? That seems to be the form of the question, according to a recent article in the National Post newspaper.
.
Even in tiny Malta is it about to consider an important issue by a referendum.
This is over the rather important question of - Divorce.
It is currently only one of two countries that does not allow divorce. The other is apparently The Philippines.
Both are strong Roman Catholic countries which have resisted this now unfortunately common manner of concluding a marriage.
The referendum was introduced by the government - not petitioned by the people, but the principle does follow - the people are being asked to decide an issue.
Is divorce to be allowable after a four year separation? That seems to be the form of the question, according to a recent article in the National Post newspaper.
.
B.C. Referendum update - Motivation for it
More info from former Premier Bill Vander Zalm about British Columbia's Referendum law:
It seems that this legislation (to see whether referendums were something that the people in B.C. would want) was developed originally over concerns about Prime Minister Mulroney's efforts to force upon the Canadian people the ideas emanating from the 1987 Meech Lake Accord.
It seems that an otherwise required unanimous premier approval for the constitutional changes being proposed could not be obtained, because in B.C. the then NDP premier, Mike Harcourt, would not legally give such approval without first "taking it to the people". And so Mulroney decided to over-ride such requirement by taking it to all Canadians. This was via a national referendum - called the Charlottetown accord. That was in early 1991.
That national referendum, basically the first one since 1917, failed however, virtually all across the country.
Vander Zalm did not want this sort of Canada-wide potential dictatorship to ever occur again and proposed the B.C. provincial referendum law. However, before he could see to its adoption, he was ousted and a new leader took over.
This was Rita Johnston. She was apparently convinced by the bureaucracy to first put the idea for greater and more direct democracy to the electorate - a referendum to approve referendums. As Bill V. said to me -"the bureaucracies and most politicians are not fond of direct democracy". After much bickering from the two other parties this proposal was finally put to a vote. It passed - by an over 85% margin. B.C. people clearly wanted to be better consulted sometimes.
Still, the then NDP government had to write the rules. After two years of niggling, they came out with such which were much too daunting to really work. In 1995 their law required ten % of the voters from every one of the 89 provincial constituencies to approve the idea of a specific referendum question within 90 days before such proposed referendum would need be put to a vote. Until the recent , very much objected HST tax law, about which Vander Zalm and others were able to mount a successful campaign, no other B.C. citizen initiative has been able to obtain that too difficult ten% threshold. But, they did, and now the government must withdraw their hated HST law, or put it, as requested, to a referendum. The people's democratic will may yet be victorious.
It seems that this legislation (to see whether referendums were something that the people in B.C. would want) was developed originally over concerns about Prime Minister Mulroney's efforts to force upon the Canadian people the ideas emanating from the 1987 Meech Lake Accord.
It seems that an otherwise required unanimous premier approval for the constitutional changes being proposed could not be obtained, because in B.C. the then NDP premier, Mike Harcourt, would not legally give such approval without first "taking it to the people". And so Mulroney decided to over-ride such requirement by taking it to all Canadians. This was via a national referendum - called the Charlottetown accord. That was in early 1991.
That national referendum, basically the first one since 1917, failed however, virtually all across the country.
Vander Zalm did not want this sort of Canada-wide potential dictatorship to ever occur again and proposed the B.C. provincial referendum law. However, before he could see to its adoption, he was ousted and a new leader took over.
This was Rita Johnston. She was apparently convinced by the bureaucracy to first put the idea for greater and more direct democracy to the electorate - a referendum to approve referendums. As Bill V. said to me -"the bureaucracies and most politicians are not fond of direct democracy". After much bickering from the two other parties this proposal was finally put to a vote. It passed - by an over 85% margin. B.C. people clearly wanted to be better consulted sometimes.
Still, the then NDP government had to write the rules. After two years of niggling, they came out with such which were much too daunting to really work. In 1995 their law required ten % of the voters from every one of the 89 provincial constituencies to approve the idea of a specific referendum question within 90 days before such proposed referendum would need be put to a vote. Until the recent , very much objected HST tax law, about which Vander Zalm and others were able to mount a successful campaign, no other B.C. citizen initiative has been able to obtain that too difficult ten% threshold. But, they did, and now the government must withdraw their hated HST law, or put it, as requested, to a referendum. The people's democratic will may yet be victorious.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
B.C. Referendum History
Information recently obtained from former B.C. Prime Minister Bill Vander Zalm has brought me up to date on just how it obtained Direct Democracy rights there.
It seems that back in 1990 the Socred Party government promised to introduce Direct Democracy in B.C.. They invited two experts from California to their annual convention to describe the method. Such method of referendums had been used in California since the early 1900's.
And so, the Party decided to ask their people whether they wanted such. Two questions were designed; one about the right to recall sitting members, and the other the right to propose questions to the government which it must submit to voters by referendum. (a referendum to see whether they wanted referendums).
The total cost of the questions was 1.7 million dollars. The cost included information pamphlets, advertising, toll-free information phone lines, and costs for actually running the questions.
Over 80% of the people said - yes to both questions, with turnout being just a bit less than in a general election.
Bill V. said that to get it implemented in Ontario we must get a political party to include it within its written party policy. How can we do that? Well, somehow one must influence the party members to persuade their elected members.
That is no easy task - but with effort and time it is surely a worthwhile endeavor. Hope you can help.
I will describe the motivation towards the whole idea in B.C. in another blog.
It seems that back in 1990 the Socred Party government promised to introduce Direct Democracy in B.C.. They invited two experts from California to their annual convention to describe the method. Such method of referendums had been used in California since the early 1900's.
And so, the Party decided to ask their people whether they wanted such. Two questions were designed; one about the right to recall sitting members, and the other the right to propose questions to the government which it must submit to voters by referendum. (a referendum to see whether they wanted referendums).
The total cost of the questions was 1.7 million dollars. The cost included information pamphlets, advertising, toll-free information phone lines, and costs for actually running the questions.
Over 80% of the people said - yes to both questions, with turnout being just a bit less than in a general election.
Bill V. said that to get it implemented in Ontario we must get a political party to include it within its written party policy. How can we do that? Well, somehow one must influence the party members to persuade their elected members.
That is no easy task - but with effort and time it is surely a worthwhile endeavor. Hope you can help.
I will describe the motivation towards the whole idea in B.C. in another blog.
Daylight Saving Time in Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan remains one of the few areas on the continent which did not see fit to change to Daylight Saving Time time in early March - again.
This despite the government promising to bring the point up in a referendum.
Isn't it odd? Even when the government suggests they will decide a question via a citizen's vote on the subject, it still refuses to do so.
It claimed that it would cost too much - $100,000.
But to have brought up such a vote during an election, or such time, would have cost very little extra to implement.
And though such process is not exactly what I have in mind when I espouse the merits of Direct Democracy, it still would have been an effort to confirm citizen's wishes.
In Direct Democracy regimes - such as in 24 of the US states, Switzerland, Germany, and elsewhere, the citizens themselves can require referendums when enough of them to sign a petition towards such ideas. And, if passed, the governments are bound to the results. That is real democracy in action.
But Saskatchewan leaders obviously do not trust their people. A group which has influence on the leadership persuaded it - that it should not do what it said it would do. Too bad. Saskatchewan remains outside the mainstream. Does the majority of it really want that result? Well, we just cannot tell.
This despite the government promising to bring the point up in a referendum.
Isn't it odd? Even when the government suggests they will decide a question via a citizen's vote on the subject, it still refuses to do so.
It claimed that it would cost too much - $100,000.
But to have brought up such a vote during an election, or such time, would have cost very little extra to implement.
And though such process is not exactly what I have in mind when I espouse the merits of Direct Democracy, it still would have been an effort to confirm citizen's wishes.
In Direct Democracy regimes - such as in 24 of the US states, Switzerland, Germany, and elsewhere, the citizens themselves can require referendums when enough of them to sign a petition towards such ideas. And, if passed, the governments are bound to the results. That is real democracy in action.
But Saskatchewan leaders obviously do not trust their people. A group which has influence on the leadership persuaded it - that it should not do what it said it would do. Too bad. Saskatchewan remains outside the mainstream. Does the majority of it really want that result? Well, we just cannot tell.
Queen's University Rector?
A young man who somehow became elected as a "rector" by his peers at Queen's University recently, presumed that he could speak for all of them upon any subject. And so he did. He said that Israel was just like South Africa had been in its apartheid policies. And that "apartheid week", an occasion to bash Jewish concepts should be in full swing there at the campus.
Of course many previous "rectors" who heard about this affront spoke out against such liberty by the current rector. They mentioned that though the position did grant some authority, it did not go so far as the current incumbent tried to maintain.
What this does, in my opinion, is to disclose just how power can corrupt. No effort was taken to clarify if such views were of majority opinion. The leader felt he could speak for everyone, regardless as to whether they had permitted him to.
That is a problem we often have with" leaders". They think that they can do or say anything, and that that should bind those whom they believe they can lead.
In a system where more people have a say in what goes on - as with Direct Democracy areas, the people so governed do not pass on more aspects of leadership than minimal. For example, in Switzerland, they do not even have a president or Prime Minister.
Leaders can be very important, of course, - in charting visions and forging towards them. But, Queens students had not expected their "rector" to be so outspoken on their behalf. Maybe they should not be electing such persons. It is not a concept common to many other universities. One wonders whether the practice there may become discontinued - or whether Queen's University will obtain more black marks from similar outbursts from other rectors in the future.
Of course many previous "rectors" who heard about this affront spoke out against such liberty by the current rector. They mentioned that though the position did grant some authority, it did not go so far as the current incumbent tried to maintain.
What this does, in my opinion, is to disclose just how power can corrupt. No effort was taken to clarify if such views were of majority opinion. The leader felt he could speak for everyone, regardless as to whether they had permitted him to.
That is a problem we often have with" leaders". They think that they can do or say anything, and that that should bind those whom they believe they can lead.
In a system where more people have a say in what goes on - as with Direct Democracy areas, the people so governed do not pass on more aspects of leadership than minimal. For example, in Switzerland, they do not even have a president or Prime Minister.
Leaders can be very important, of course, - in charting visions and forging towards them. But, Queens students had not expected their "rector" to be so outspoken on their behalf. Maybe they should not be electing such persons. It is not a concept common to many other universities. One wonders whether the practice there may become discontinued - or whether Queen's University will obtain more black marks from similar outbursts from other rectors in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)