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!

Calgary's attempt to-wards a referendum of its citizens

     One would think that an effort by a mayor  within a democratic community  to put an important issue to a vote by his citizenry would be looked upon as a desirable idea. In Calgary, that is being put to a bit of a test. There, due to an inadvertent error, some  $52 million was paid by the city recently to the provincial government by mistake. It is being returned. Mayor  Naheed Nenshi   believes that what should be done to it should be decided by a citizen referendum. Some 5 ideas are being suggested. Two of them involve returning the money to the taxpayers, by reducing a subsequent tax load. Three other possibilities  reflect ideas about improvements not previously felt within the city's means.
     But, some opponents of the mayor object to  this gesture to citizen involvement in decision-making. This even includes the provincial premier.  It is odd, isn't it, that anyone could object to such a gesture, in a supposed democratic-loving community. We will see just what happens, as this issue moves  along.
     It is not exactly a citizen-initiated referendum, favoured by your scribe, but it is a movement in the right direction he feels. So felt the National Post reporter - Matt Gurney in his column on June 6.

 

Recent referendum news - in Europe, and America.

      Many bits of news about citizen referendums, recently: David Cameron, PM of Britain, is planning a referendum soon to determine whether his countrymen want to continue their close association with Europe. This is not exactly a "citizen initiated referendum", but should probably be used, says the prestigious Economist magazine, where political parties cannot effectively decide such a very important matter,  through a normal election.  
     And then there is little Latvia. Many citizens there are trying to have a referendum about whether it should join the Euro. The PM there is all in favour; but many Latvians, with long memories about their associations with Russia, and its rouble, wish to have their voice heard. With the Swiss electorate's referendum decision not to follow their "leaders" wishes about joining the Euro, several years ago, turning out to have been correct, ought this referendum be pursued also, it seems clear to this writer.
     Then, of course, there is the US experience with gun control. According to polls down there, some 90% of the citizens back changes in the law. But, as the  Economist editorialist said back on April 20,  they  just do not back such changes with intensity. And so, "passionate minorities (from the gun lobbies) .... thwart change". Enough frightened, elected representatives  beat back the ideas floated by the president and others, so that even with such horrible gun killings there, no realistic gun law changes are able to occur. Would not this be a proper place for a referendum, or two?  Even where they allegedly are somehow contrary to the constitution - constitutions are only laws, which should be changeable, if enough people want that to happen.
    Finally one should mention the interesting, recent  discussion in Colorado about a heinous criminal; some believe he should be executed, thus saving the taxpayer's a lot of money  instead of  keeping him in prison for life. Others strongly condemn such a practice.  But, in Colorado, back an 1966, and again in 1974 did the citizens affirm their desire to permit such killing. Whether one agrees in the death penalty or not, one should, in a democracy, respect such decisions, say many.They add that "where it is the government by the people, for the people", one must let the people decide; and in Colorado they seem to favour the death penalty. That is the law there - and in appropriate circumstances, should be followed. The citizens have given their view - twice!
      In the meantime..... will North Bay, will Ontario, will Canada, in this 21st Century,  permit its citizens to vote on any issues; or must the citizens there become increasingly frustrated, and ill-behaved, due to their lack of any realistic say in what is going on within their legislatures? Keep tuned in!

The Swiss now require shareholder approval of executive pay

          The Swiss have done it again. The question asked of them recently was - called "the people's initiative against fat cat pay". And   68% of the electorate passed a measure that requires "listed" companies to offer shareholders a binding vote on senior manager's pay etc. at annual meetings. A big penalty is to fall upon those bosses who do not comply. This has apparently been a 12 year cause of one strongly determined individual who had noted some patently unfair compensation packages to not so deserving corporate leaders - some in failing companies.
Some Swiss businesses are a bit "shaken", according to the Mar. 9 edition of the Economist Magazine. But, this is now the law in Switzerland, due to a carefully worded referendum which the people thought was just.
Will Ontario ever allow its citizens to vote upon issues;  not just upon the complicated process determining a representative of a party led by a leader, about which no one can  be sure will pursue policies which those people might want or expect?  Brian MacLeod wrote a column on Mar. 14, within the North Bay daily Nugget newspaper suggesting that approvals of casinos should rest with the local citizens. Apparently Tim Hudak the aspiring Ontario leader of the Conservative Party has said he would insist upon municipalities holding such. This would be a move in the right direction upon one controversial issue.
MacLeod concludes his column by pointing out -"people are  strange... they know what's best for them".
And of course it is the essence of true democracy - the people are supposed to have the say.
So many issues are not being considered by the people, though communication to-day is so much easier.
Will the quiet majority ever rise up in Ontario to require that their opinions be fully considered; or will only the party leaders, or the mobs that rule the streets, and the loudest voices be the only ones heard?

Could "mob" vetoes be deterred by referendums?

     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?

Citizens Petitioning Parliament for Action?

Did you  notice  two very experienced parliamentarians of very opposing sides publicly agreeing, recently, upon a potentially significant improvement into our country's democracy? Preston Manning and Ed Broadbent are supporting a current NDP member, Kennedy  Stewart's effort to require parliamentary debates upon certain issues of concern by ordinary citizenry.  Some 20 other members, including two Conservatives have also agreed that such proposal should be considered. Manning is a former Reform Party, Canadian Alliance  leader, who left office back in 2002, while Broadbent was leader of the federal NDP party for many years.
How it would work is basically, this: when some 50,000 citizens (say) signed online a petition that  a certain matter must  be decided by their parliament, such petition would be presented. If 5 (say)  elected members agreed that such was worthwhile (was not frivolous, for example), then within a certain time period such matter must be brought  up,  debated,  and  concluded one way or the other by parliament.
This is not exactly a citizen's referendum , as within the ideal of Direct Democracy activists (like myself), but certainly goes a long way to-wards reducing the considerable  frustrations created by the current process - which is so party-led, and publicly absent.
A 25 citizen petition method requiring, supposedly, similar results actually goes back historically many decades, but has not been followed in any effective manner within living memory.
A committee would be set up to examine the details  over a period of perhaps one year.
The issue is expected to be brought up before the summer.
An article on this subject was printed in the Vancouver Sun newspaper on Feb. 26.