Then there is the Alberta pipeline hold-up. In USA it seems that the president when confronted by some protesters can hold up billions of dollars of investment there; while here, will it be some money-demanding native groups who hold things up further, or some US environmental ones? In either case it could be majority opinions in a proper, democratic from that makes such decisions. Protests generally have much more clout and cause much more inconvenience than it is likely the majority of citizens appreciate. Would it not be better to expect that such groups mount initiatives of sufficient size, requiring a vote that establishes final enactment?
Toronto's awkward budgeting squabbles could be better handled, if necessary, by referendums.
Even, the controversial closing of swimming pools or librarys, likewise.
Agreed.......But......when it comes to complex issues that are not understood to any adequate degree (even by so called "experts"), people tend to be caught up in the momentum of immediate concerns and ironically/greedily make regrettable choices. The fact that profit and convenience generally trumps the environment is an obvious example. Referendums put a lot of faith in human nature which has spoken for itself time and again. Referendums could be better used, but everyone has to vote and above all, it needs to be appreciated that 51% is little more than undecided and so "majority" needs to be redefined. Perhaps we could vote on what to vote on? Just imagine...sharing resources and wealth...yes or no....would that be the beginning or the end of Democracy?
ReplyDeleteBruce Cockburn says its best;
"one day we'll wake up from our habitual feast, and find ourselves staring down the throat of the beast,
they call a revolution"