Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Presenting: C.U.R.D.
I have an idea.
As readers of my blog will be aware, I hold a certain set of views with regard to the role of voters, Members of Parliament, cabinet, and political parties in Canadian government. In brief, and in no particular order, this belief set could be summarized as follows:
1. The link between voter and MP is the foundation of Canadian representative democracy.
2. Each MP is free to vote as he/she chooses, and is accountable only to his/her conscience and his/her constituents in how he/she exercises that freedom.
3. Accordingly, no MP should vote other than how he/she would otherwise have voted by reason of partisan affiliation.
4. During elections, Canadians are not electing a government, but a Parliament.
5. Accordingly, voters should vote only on the basis of who they want representing them in Parliament, and not on the basis of who they want as Prime Minister.
6. Government (cabinet) serves at the pleasure of Parliament and, in this capacity, is subordinate to Parliament (though it has powers that Parliament does not have the right to exercise directly).
7. This system - in which the head of government is not popularily elected, but named by an unelected head of state - is not the ideal system, but it is the system in place in Canada, and attempts to "quasi-elect" the head of government are not compatible with Westminster-stlye Parliamentary democracy.
I think that the time is ripe for advancing these viewpoints, especially as they apply to independent MPs. Chuck Cadman was likely to the most respected member of the last Parliament, the balance of power in a confidence vote was recently held by four independent MPs, and, of course, Garth Turner is getting ready to take names, kick ass, and introduce private members bills. Moreover, the threat of proportional representation (the kind in which MPs are selected from party lists, as opposed to the kind recommended by the B.C. citizens' assembly, which I quite like) is looming on the horizon, with no lobby organizations of which I am aware fighting it and no politicians of whom I am aware willing to pay the political cost of coming out firmly against it.
I propose to fill that vacuum through the creation of a new group: Canadians United for Representative Democracy. As I envision it, here are a few of the activities in which C.U.R.D. could engage:
1. Issuing media statements every time some element of representative democracy is in the media - for example, during the Garth Turner saga or once the Ontario citizens' assembly reports.
2. Releasing an annual report card of MPs, compiled on the basis of such objective critera as whether they respond to e-mails from constituents, whether their websites feature any interactive component, whether they schedule and advertise forums in their ridings, and whether their websites include content about their work as distinct from their party's.
3. Engaging in letter-writing campaigns and such-like on any relevant legislation to come before the House of Commons.
Since I had this idea last night, I've become rather excited about it and have arguably gone overboard. I conducted a NUANS name search, registered a domain, and written a draft set of bylaws. Some things that I still need, and which any interested people would be welcome to help me with:
1. In order to incorporate, I will need three people (including me) and $200. I have the latter, (though anybody willing to contribute to this cause would be warmly embraced - I've already shelled out for the name search and the domain registration) but I still need the former.
2. I need web hosting - preferably cheap web hosting.
3. I need somebody to design a website - nothing elaborate, but something more elaborate than what's there now.
4. I need somebody whose French has eroded less than mine has to provide a French version of the name - the best I've come up with is Canadiens Soutenants la Démocratie Représentative, but I'm really not sure of my choice of verb, and I also have the distinct impression that that S shouldn't be there (though intellectually is appears to me that it should).
If anybody wants to help with any of this, please send me an e-mail.
|
I have an idea.
As readers of my blog will be aware, I hold a certain set of views with regard to the role of voters, Members of Parliament, cabinet, and political parties in Canadian government. In brief, and in no particular order, this belief set could be summarized as follows:
1. The link between voter and MP is the foundation of Canadian representative democracy.
2. Each MP is free to vote as he/she chooses, and is accountable only to his/her conscience and his/her constituents in how he/she exercises that freedom.
3. Accordingly, no MP should vote other than how he/she would otherwise have voted by reason of partisan affiliation.
4. During elections, Canadians are not electing a government, but a Parliament.
5. Accordingly, voters should vote only on the basis of who they want representing them in Parliament, and not on the basis of who they want as Prime Minister.
6. Government (cabinet) serves at the pleasure of Parliament and, in this capacity, is subordinate to Parliament (though it has powers that Parliament does not have the right to exercise directly).
7. This system - in which the head of government is not popularily elected, but named by an unelected head of state - is not the ideal system, but it is the system in place in Canada, and attempts to "quasi-elect" the head of government are not compatible with Westminster-stlye Parliamentary democracy.
I think that the time is ripe for advancing these viewpoints, especially as they apply to independent MPs. Chuck Cadman was likely to the most respected member of the last Parliament, the balance of power in a confidence vote was recently held by four independent MPs, and, of course, Garth Turner is getting ready to take names, kick ass, and introduce private members bills. Moreover, the threat of proportional representation (the kind in which MPs are selected from party lists, as opposed to the kind recommended by the B.C. citizens' assembly, which I quite like) is looming on the horizon, with no lobby organizations of which I am aware fighting it and no politicians of whom I am aware willing to pay the political cost of coming out firmly against it.
I propose to fill that vacuum through the creation of a new group: Canadians United for Representative Democracy. As I envision it, here are a few of the activities in which C.U.R.D. could engage:
1. Issuing media statements every time some element of representative democracy is in the media - for example, during the Garth Turner saga or once the Ontario citizens' assembly reports.
2. Releasing an annual report card of MPs, compiled on the basis of such objective critera as whether they respond to e-mails from constituents, whether their websites feature any interactive component, whether they schedule and advertise forums in their ridings, and whether their websites include content about their work as distinct from their party's.
3. Engaging in letter-writing campaigns and such-like on any relevant legislation to come before the House of Commons.
Since I had this idea last night, I've become rather excited about it and have arguably gone overboard. I conducted a NUANS name search, registered a domain, and written a draft set of bylaws. Some things that I still need, and which any interested people would be welcome to help me with:
1. In order to incorporate, I will need three people (including me) and $200. I have the latter, (though anybody willing to contribute to this cause would be warmly embraced - I've already shelled out for the name search and the domain registration) but I still need the former.
2. I need web hosting - preferably cheap web hosting.
3. I need somebody to design a website - nothing elaborate, but something more elaborate than what's there now.
4. I need somebody whose French has eroded less than mine has to provide a French version of the name - the best I've come up with is Canadiens Soutenants la Démocratie Représentative, but I'm really not sure of my choice of verb, and I also have the distinct impression that that S shouldn't be there (though intellectually is appears to me that it should).
If anybody wants to help with any of this, please send me an e-mail.
