Talk about the Canadian senate; the people in Ireland clearly want to keep theirs. Just this past week they voted in large numbers in a referendum - to keep it. This was despite the governing party strongly supporting its abolition. Although a deep disappointment to the leaders in Ireland, the people have "spoken" and the government has agreed to follow their wishes. It will be overhauled , it seems, to improve its methods. But, it will be kept as a sort of watchdog over the moves of whatever government is in power.
Such is the power and influence of a referendum; the voice of democracy - the power of the people; - as it should be.
Just why cannot our people require a better form of participation - to vote in referendums? When will a party as part of its policy include the right of our people - under important, constraints, to vote on issues? It is being done in more and more parts of the world. And, it could certainly reduce the wild, and increasingly disrupting demonstrations that some people feel are the only way to obtain a voice in what is going on.
Congratulations Ireland! Your voice has been heard - and listened to, without requiring a new election, or any disruption in the way the country is governed. Real democracy - it works!
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Executive pay subject to more shareholder caution, after recent Swiss vote
Lots of easy to find, and new, information upon the internet, through looking at Google under Switzerland and new referendums; the one detail I recently found most interesting related to the 2013 federal referendum proposing a limitation upon executive bonuses etc. within Swiss national, public companies.
This idea was initiated by an individual, back in 2008. He was upset at the poor performances of some large Swiss companies which had paid its executives very large bonuses.
After a lot of effort in obtaining sufficient signatures to put the matter to a vote, and lots of money spent, especially by opponents of the proposal, and opposition by the Swiss government, it was passed by a 62% majority. Some 1,616,000 people voted in favour, 761,000 against. All 20 full cantons and the 6 half cantons favoured it.
Other details within the very fulsome web page point out that supporters of the proposal spent 200,000 Swiss Francs, opponents 8 million. Eleven cantons permitted overseas voters to vote online, after the federal council permitted that method.
What the law does is require not only that shareholders annually approve the election of the president and management board, but also the bonus schemes and pay plans for the directors, and even loans granted to such employees, the durationof employment contracts of executive officers; and approval of severance packages; it even bans corporate proxy, and requires pension funds to disclose the way they vote.
Such an amazing involvement by the Swiss people in matters which most of us just shrug at, and ignore - often at our financial peril. About 2,500,000 people voted on the issue.
And it shows that money does not always sway a majority of voters. Now, why could we in Ontario, or Canada, or even our smaller communities, not improve our democracy, and reduce the proven, great frustrations within it, by permitting such voting on issues - where enough people want to vote upon them? Tell others; tell your member. Changes can happen, if enough people want them. Even upsetting public demonstrations and concomitant law-breaking should be lessened, if democracy by the majority actually could be more available.
This idea was initiated by an individual, back in 2008. He was upset at the poor performances of some large Swiss companies which had paid its executives very large bonuses.
After a lot of effort in obtaining sufficient signatures to put the matter to a vote, and lots of money spent, especially by opponents of the proposal, and opposition by the Swiss government, it was passed by a 62% majority. Some 1,616,000 people voted in favour, 761,000 against. All 20 full cantons and the 6 half cantons favoured it.
Other details within the very fulsome web page point out that supporters of the proposal spent 200,000 Swiss Francs, opponents 8 million. Eleven cantons permitted overseas voters to vote online, after the federal council permitted that method.
What the law does is require not only that shareholders annually approve the election of the president and management board, but also the bonus schemes and pay plans for the directors, and even loans granted to such employees, the durationof employment contracts of executive officers; and approval of severance packages; it even bans corporate proxy, and requires pension funds to disclose the way they vote.
Such an amazing involvement by the Swiss people in matters which most of us just shrug at, and ignore - often at our financial peril. About 2,500,000 people voted on the issue.
And it shows that money does not always sway a majority of voters. Now, why could we in Ontario, or Canada, or even our smaller communities, not improve our democracy, and reduce the proven, great frustrations within it, by permitting such voting on issues - where enough people want to vote upon them? Tell others; tell your member. Changes can happen, if enough people want them. Even upsetting public demonstrations and concomitant law-breaking should be lessened, if democracy by the majority actually could be more available.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Amazing referendums happening!
So many interesting examples of direct democracy in Switzerland (and one in Canada) recently:
1. The citizens of the large and powerful Canton of Zurich voted to stop its legislators from providing 200 million Swiss Francs for a new football stadium; which makes one wonder whether the city of North Bay should have permitted a referendum before expanding its coliseum by several million dollars to permit a hockey team to perform there.
2. The small village of Hodrigen where that giant of a mining company Xstrata Glencore has a plant, and where some 1 million Sw. Frs were recently received from the 360 million of that huge company's tax, voted via a referendum to provide 120 thousand Sw. Fr to aid projects in poorer parts of the world where the company operates. Now isn't that some sort of altruistic leaning! Should our aid dollars receive similar backings?
3. In the Italian canton of Ticino, a referendum which garnered 12,000 signatures back in 2011 for such petition just recently voted 65% in favour, to ban the public wearing of head coverings such as the Burka. It would not include carnival masks, dust filters or motorcycle helmets. But it would send a "signal" that people are against militant Islam according to a main proponent, though only a handful of such people are living in that canton. It was hoped that the signal would be copied elsewhere within the country. We wonder whether it will be heard in Quebec, where a similar sort of effort is being now proposed; (though via a citizen referendum?)
4. But what about the proposed guaranteed monthly income of 3,000Sw, Fr. for all Swiss adults, about which there has been just signed a petition of some 120,000 Swiss (of a needed 100,000)? It may be voted upon in 2014. Will the Swiss people approve that? Time will tell. But, it certainly has the potential of changing some fabric of that country. Some companies say that they would have to leave if such a law came into place.
5. Finally, in British Columbia the only province in Canada which has a detailed law about citizens voting in referendums, there is very interesting effort just being started. It is to permit the legalization of marijuana. There is in B.C. an extremely difficult requirement that to have a binding citizen-initiated referendum one must get ten percent of the citizens in every riding within 90 days to sign a petition wishing such vote. Since the enactment of the enabling legislation in the 1990's, only one such question has managed such a difficult task - one which ultimately barred the HST. But some 1600 volunteers have been obtained to travel the province to obtain such signatures. Will B.C. emulate its neighbour, Washington State to permit adult smoking of marijuana? Again, time will tell; but it is clearly another example of the pursuit of pure democracy being attempted by earnest citizens.
Can one find fault in these efforts to involve citizens in the running of their country, countries which deem themselves - democracies? Yet, where else in Canada, where in Ontario, where in North Bay, can one see similar examples of citizen involvement? The frustrations mount under the current system. Will we see changes here? You can hope they do; or better - try to persuade others that they should happen; - before Egyptian-like explosions happen here; or before bankruptcies a la Detroit, destroy our very fabric.
1. The citizens of the large and powerful Canton of Zurich voted to stop its legislators from providing 200 million Swiss Francs for a new football stadium; which makes one wonder whether the city of North Bay should have permitted a referendum before expanding its coliseum by several million dollars to permit a hockey team to perform there.
2. The small village of Hodrigen where that giant of a mining company Xstrata Glencore has a plant, and where some 1 million Sw. Frs were recently received from the 360 million of that huge company's tax, voted via a referendum to provide 120 thousand Sw. Fr to aid projects in poorer parts of the world where the company operates. Now isn't that some sort of altruistic leaning! Should our aid dollars receive similar backings?
3. In the Italian canton of Ticino, a referendum which garnered 12,000 signatures back in 2011 for such petition just recently voted 65% in favour, to ban the public wearing of head coverings such as the Burka. It would not include carnival masks, dust filters or motorcycle helmets. But it would send a "signal" that people are against militant Islam according to a main proponent, though only a handful of such people are living in that canton. It was hoped that the signal would be copied elsewhere within the country. We wonder whether it will be heard in Quebec, where a similar sort of effort is being now proposed; (though via a citizen referendum?)
4. But what about the proposed guaranteed monthly income of 3,000Sw, Fr. for all Swiss adults, about which there has been just signed a petition of some 120,000 Swiss (of a needed 100,000)? It may be voted upon in 2014. Will the Swiss people approve that? Time will tell. But, it certainly has the potential of changing some fabric of that country. Some companies say that they would have to leave if such a law came into place.
5. Finally, in British Columbia the only province in Canada which has a detailed law about citizens voting in referendums, there is very interesting effort just being started. It is to permit the legalization of marijuana. There is in B.C. an extremely difficult requirement that to have a binding citizen-initiated referendum one must get ten percent of the citizens in every riding within 90 days to sign a petition wishing such vote. Since the enactment of the enabling legislation in the 1990's, only one such question has managed such a difficult task - one which ultimately barred the HST. But some 1600 volunteers have been obtained to travel the province to obtain such signatures. Will B.C. emulate its neighbour, Washington State to permit adult smoking of marijuana? Again, time will tell; but it is clearly another example of the pursuit of pure democracy being attempted by earnest citizens.
Can one find fault in these efforts to involve citizens in the running of their country, countries which deem themselves - democracies? Yet, where else in Canada, where in Ontario, where in North Bay, can one see similar examples of citizen involvement? The frustrations mount under the current system. Will we see changes here? You can hope they do; or better - try to persuade others that they should happen; - before Egyptian-like explosions happen here; or before bankruptcies a la Detroit, destroy our very fabric.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
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!
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!
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
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!
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!
Friday, June 14, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)