The "mob" has a veto? Chris Selley of the National Post recently referred to that scenario , while discussing the Albeta-led pipeline debate. And he referred to many other similar environmentalist inspired protests elsewhere in North America; and to the Quebec student protests - and more especially to aboriginal blockades. Some even suggest that it is media's undue attention to such protests that control a big idea's destiny.
Then a question was asked - what if someone to-day brought forth a proposal to construct a trans-Canada railway, such as occurred a century or more ago? Would it have a chance of going forward?
You might not just need media approval; anti-railroad zealots could even get unelected courts to back their opposition. A Toronto area railway from the airport to downtown has been held up for years by zealots in opposition.
Selley has no good answer to the power of to-day's mobs, aided by internet incendiarism, and media attention spans.
But, there is a good answer. It is to permit the majority to have a say - via properly induced referendums. When will that majority stand up and require our governments to permit them to have such a say? When, indeed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What happens when the "zealots" actually represent the opinion of the majority? There are a number of issues propagated that would have you believe the minority opinion is the dominant one; their opinion is greatly magnified by the use of astro-turf groups (groups set-up by industry but pretending to be grass-roots), bought politicians, and a willing media.
ReplyDeletePeople wishing to develop tar sands, for example, don't want direct democracy because they know the majority vote isn't in their financial interest. The last thing those with vested financial interests want is letting the people of Canada have a vote on those projects. Based on the number of examples from the last year, the current federal government certainly doesn't want that either.
If anything, direct democracy is now more of a dream than it was 20 years ago. And only slightly tongue-in-cheek, democracy itself seems to be just around in name only.