Canada can't export democracy, Harperites admit

By John Deverell, Catch 22 campaign

The Harper cabinet has killed off its own plan to spend $70 million yearly promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law in developing countries.

The scheme for a Canadian Centre for Advancing Democracy was originated by Peter Mackay while he was Minister for External Affairs and promoted in the 2008 speech from the throne. Since then, nothing.

It seems to have occurred to the boss, in a moment of blinding clarity, that you can’t export what you don’t have. It is very difficult to explain to people in undemocratic countries why the Canadian system, in which half the voters elect nobody, is democratic.

So there will be no new centre, and other Canadian organizations which do promote what the government calls “democracy” abroad are having their difficulties with Ottawa.

Funding for the Forum of the Federations will dry up in March. Montreal-based Rights and Democracy has struggled to regain its reputation after a very public battle over management of the organization and accusations of Conservative meddling.

Last fall, CIDA stopped funding the Parliamentary Centre of Canada's program in Haiti to help advise legislators just as that country began to prepare for an election and as local politicians searched for more accountability in aid spending.

For more read: Dream of Canadian democracy centre melts as Arab world boils

Comment

You need to be a member of Catch 22 Campaign to add comments!

Join Catch 22 Campaign

Comment by Jesse Rosenberg on February 25, 2011 at 8:51pm: Well, for one thing, winners in an IRV system represent the majority choice of a local district. PR (and correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that's what you're favouring) as you know has a lot of problems of it's own, starting with a lack of local representation (our MPs do provide important services, though I think it's tragic that their role as true local representatives has been eroded by fealty to party). Another important consideration which I'm not sure your comments have factored in is that voters for parties that are left out of the governing coaliton in PR systems are still completely ignored. I haven't undertaken a study, but I'm going to guess those numbers average something like 45% (49.9% being the maximum, obviously, but I don't think a lot of coalitions run into the 60s, percentage-wise).

We have, and have had for a long time, the democratic outlet, as I suggested earlier. We can defeat this government any time we want; we just have to figure out how to make people aware of what's really going on.

Comment by John Deverell on February 25, 2011 at 8:34pm: Sorry to learn of your enthusiasm for IRV, Jesse. How does that provide representation for the citizens who don't vote for the winner? In my view, IRV is a variant of FPTP, lipstick on the pig, still not democratic.

I wish we had a strong democratic tradition, but where do you see it? We are a generally obedient folk with considerable personal freedom under the rule of law, but all within a pre-democratic electoral scheme which greatly restricts effective political expression and facilitates elite manipulation.

Comment by Jesse Rosenberg on February 25, 2011 at 6:01pm: I refer you to the West Wing bit where Toby tries to talk delegates drafting a new constitution for their country out of a presidential system... Does anyone really think that, if we were to start all over, we'd use FPTP?

I'm personally a strong advocate of IRV. I can't see why we should have trouble helping countries use our legal expertise and strong democratic tradition (even if you don't love one part of it) in other areas.

The problem, therefore, is that we're not doing anything to help anymore.

Comment by Catch 22 on February 25, 2011 at 5:50pm: Who knows with Harper (not that the world is really listening to what he has to say anyway)? No country has selected FPTP in a long time. How could Canada promote a proportional system abroad while sticking with the undemocratic single member plurality system in Canada?

Comment by Jesse Rosenberg on February 25, 2011 at 5:38pm: I don't think we'd teach other countries to put in place FPTP anyway, do you?

Comment by John Deverell on February 25, 2011 at 3:42pm: In Canada it's not so easy to get rid of a government. It is not sufficient for voters to vote for a different party. They must somehow agree on which different party in order to defeat the government candidates.

On average half the votes cast in Canadian federal elections elect nobody. In my book, those citizens are unrepresented in Parliament, so Canada does not have democratic representative government--and we have little to teach those who want it.

The best teaching is by example. Canadian shamocracy is not worth imitating if democracy is the goal. The same could be said of the UK and US systems. They are shamocracies.

Comment by Jesse Rosenberg on February 25, 2011 at 1:01pm: We still have a system where we could vote out our government; we just have a situation where most people are (wrongly in my, and I can see your) view, declining to bother, thus granting their consent.

I think it's a mistake to say that means we still can't try to help out in other countries; I think it's tragic that instead of being at the front of the line to say "how can we help with the transition in Egypt" all we had was "can't put the toothpaste back in the tube", as though we'd rather we could.