A Means to Fight Political Apathy

Humbly, I do not agree with the position that the change outlined by the “Fair vote Canada” declaration will increase democracy in Canada. It may increase the appearance of greater democracy, but it will not actually increase it.

The reason for this is that fundamentally, our system of government, “whipped” by party discipline, is an elected dictatorship.

Please note that “elected dictatorship” or “elective dictatorship” is the focus of study and discussion in a number of countries as illustrated in the compilation “Restraining Elective Dictatorship”. In reading this compilation, it is fairly clear that, independent of the electoral system (a “first past the post” system to a “proportional” system or somewhere in between), the result of most any election is still the same: an “elected dictatorship”.

In our system of government, the only “checks and balances” on the “elected dictatorship” are the Senate and the Supreme Court. And in the case of the Senate, well, only Santa can help…

In my opinion, there is really only one thing that threatens the Canadian democracy. And that is: apathy!

The accepted measure of political apathy is the percentage of voter turnout.

In the Canadian context, voter turn-out has dropped to 61% in the 2011 federal election from a high of 79% in the 1963 federal election. This fits in the general tendency found in a number of countries such as France and England (parliamentary: 54.4%, 65.5% respectively).

However, the percentage of the population that are involved in the political process as described by the number of members of a political party can also be a measure of the level of political apathy.

Consider that in Europe the percentage of the population involved in a country’s politics is low with the exceptions being Austria (17%) and Cyprus (16%) where voter turnout is actually quite high (75% and 78% respectively). In France and the UK, the percentage drops to under 2% and just over 1% respectively. Taking a look at Australia which has both a proportional electoral system and mandatory voting, it is interesting to note that voter turnout is 93% while it is quoted that the number of Australian citizens that are member of one of 50+ parties is less than the number of people on the waiting list to the Melbourne Cricket Club or some 233000 individuals. With an eligible voting population of 14.7 million that represents some 1.5% of the population only!

And now compare these numbers with those of the US where amongst the 235 248 000 eligible voters in the 2012 Presidential election of which 51% voted there were some 75 million members of registered political parties (43 million members of the Democratic Party and 30 million members of the Republican Party). That is 31% of the eligible voter population!

While in Canada only about 2% of the population actually gets involved in political discourse as measured by federal party membership estimates.

Based on these numbers it is difficult to see which country’s population is the most apathetic about its politics. However, you take the inverse of the products of turnout and involvement as illustrated in the table below you create a metric that could be used to measure the level of apathy in particular country.

Apathy Metric

Using this “apathy” metric, it is possible to see that the USA has the lowest amount of political apathy amongst its population while the UK has the greatest amount of political apathy in its population.

It is interesting to note that Australia is marginally better than Canada mainly due to the very low level of involvement of its population in it political life.

Based on these numbers, it is not obvious that a proportional electoral system will improve our democracy. As a result, investing a lot of effort into changing our “first past the post” electoral system may indeed not produce the desired results of fighting apathy and improving if not protecting our democracy.

On the other hand, what is obvious to me from these numbers is that we need to work on increasing voter turnout as well as increasing the involvement of the our population in our political process such as through membership and volunteering in our political parties.

Therefore, in order to fight political apathy and protect and develop our democracy, there are really only two measures that should be promoted which are:

  1. Legislate mandatory participation in federal elections.
  2. Create a zero net cost tax rebate incentive system for involvement in political parties.

Australia has demonstrated that mandatory participation in federal elections works. Implementing such a measure in Canada would drop the apathy factor by 34% (assuming we reach 93% voter turnout).

A zero net cost tax rebate would be a revenue independent incentive program that recompense Canadians of a nominal $10 contribution to a political party. This measure would not be in lieu of the current tax credit to political parties. However, this measure would be designed such that any Canadian of any income level would be free to engage the political environment. It would probably also spur the increase of the number of political parties in Canada. As a result, it could be expected that the Canadian population involvement in the political process would increase to the US level if not surpass it. It is interesting to note that with a 31% involvement rate along with a 93% turnout, the apathy rating for Canada would be 3.

And the most interesting thing about legislating mandatory participation in federal elections and creating a zero cost tax credit as opposed to changing the “first past the post” electoral system is that it does not require approval from all parties to move this forward.

It only takes the one party that is in power…

Dear Santa Claus

My name is Peter and I am 5 and half (deca) years old.

For the longest time now, Santa, you have been most kind to me. In particular I would like to thank you (belatedly) for receiving my two front teeth so many moons ago.

Anyways, I have been thinking and researching how you get around the world in one night delivering gifts to all those kids. There are many theories (howstuffworks, physics) related to this as well as some controversy (military jet escorts). However, independent of the real or theoretical explanations for your means of transportation, it is clear to me that the means to get you around the world to all those homes consumes an inordinate amount of energy – those reindeer undoubtedly need to eat a lot of hay and the result is…

…methane which is 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2!

In these sensitive to energy consumption and carbon footprint times, Santa, it might be appropriate for you to consider leveraging your gifts such that a single gift can impact positively the lives of many children and as a result reduce your overall environmental footprint for the Holiday season.

Kind of like what Maimonides stated: “Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day; teach a person to fish, you feed them for a lifetime”.

Imagine Santa the effect if you could find a set of gifts that could inspire our kids to surpass themselves for the benefit not only of themselves but also for those around them.

For me, in the Canadian context, such gifts can be found in those named to the Order of Canada or to any one of the provincial orders of merit (BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Ont, Que, NB, NS, PEI, Nfld, Territories).

Amongst such a membership, you can find: Rick Hansen (BC); Yvon Dumont, Raymond Poirier, Verna Kirkness (Manitoba); Phil Fontaine, Chantal Hebert, Annette Verschuren, John de Chastelain, Chris Hadfield (Ontario); Denise Verreault, Alwyn Morris, Jean-Marie de Koninck (Quebec); Herménégilde Chiasson, James D. Irving (New Brunswick); Joan Glode, Joseph Shannon (Nova Scotia); Marion Loretta Reid (PEI).

Dear Santa, I am sure that while checking for “who is naughty or nice” you found all of these people more often than not quite high on the “nice” list.

As a result, what I want for Christmas is to ask you to persuade our Prime Minister to inspire our kids by setting a new Senate tradition and limiting nominations to our Senate to members of the Order of Canada or of provincial orders of merit. A good way for him to illustrate such a new precedent is to boldly name the 17 members of the Order of Canada mentioned above to fill the current vacancies in the Senate (17 as of December 15th) and to challenge all future Prime Ministers to do the same.

Such a gift could not only inspire all Canadian kids to strive to surpass themselves, but potentially the whole Canadian population – about a 35 million to 1 gift leverage factor! (and maybe we might get an effective and efficient Senate too!).

Imagine, Santa, if you can find similar models of inspiration for the world population, you would be looking at reducing your visits to (assumed world population of 7.2 billion and that Santa visits all) some 205 visits (7200×106 / 35×106) as opposed to (7.2 billion / average 4 people per family) 1.8 billion visits currently.

WOW! Talk about reducing your carbon footprint!

In any case, thank you Santa for your time and please send all my best to Mrs Claus!

Happy Holidays to ALL!

Peter Radziszewski

Please, Queen Elisabeth, give us our crown!

I like the symbolism of the crown and the monarchy that is associated with it.

It is rooted in the Divine.

Tribal kingship is often connected to sacral functions, so that the king acts as a priest, or is considered of Divine ancestry. The sacral function of kingship was transformed into the notion of “Divine right of kings” in the Christian Middle Ages, while the Chinese, Japanese and Nepalese monarchs continued to be considered living Gods into the modern period.” Wikipedia – Monarchy

However, how is it that “Divinity” is limited in the expression of one individual and their descendants?

Historically, the reaction to this was constitutional monarchy and in the extreme republicanism.

On the other hand, current thoughts tend to indicate that the expression of “divinity” can and should be pursued by all independent of birth.

If this is the case, would not all be potential candidates to wearing the Crown?

In the Canadian context, could we not ask Her Majesty The Queen to relinquish the Crown of Canada (Crown of Maples) and give it to the peoples and Nations of Canada?

It is of course understood that the Canadian Crown is actually not a physical object (although it could be designed, fabricated and included in the symbols of the Crown). The Canadian Crown is actually a “Crown in Right of Canada (and the Provinces and Territories)” which defines a system of government where the head of state is currently the Queen.

Recently, debate and legislation around the “rules of succession” indicate that modifying the “rules of succession” in the Canadian context could at best require a simple bill and at worst require unanimous approval from all provinces and the federal government. So, if we, as a country, wanted to, we could change the rules of succession such that the crown should be passed on to the people and Nations of Canada. As the Governor General of Canada represents the Crown that function would not change, but merely now represent the peoples and Nations of Canada through the Crown.

Undoubtedly, such a move to “repatriate” our Crown would meet with a lot of resistance and would probably be more or less divisive.

However, if Her Majesty The Queen were to relinquish the Canadian Crown as a gift for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, the debate could potentially be quite different. How could we refuse Her Majesty?

Peut-être je rêves en couleurs!

But consider a best case scenario. If Her Majesty were to consider relinquishing the Canadian Crown and giving it to the people and Nations of Canada, she would undoubtedly look to our history and see how we recognize the expression of divinity through the pursuit of excellence and through Noble act and deed.

Historically, we have distinguished ourselves on the battlefields of the world and continue to do so in the pursuit of peace. We have distinguished ourselves in the arts, sciences, engineering and social justice amongst other things. Many of those who have done so have been called to the Order of Canada as well as to other provincial orders of merit. Canadians have in my humble opinion expressed divinity through act and deed and have recognised its merits.

On the other hand, we as a country have fallen short in the quality of the nominations to the Senate. Many of these nominations do not reflect what Sir John A. argued “that these people would be drawn from “the best men in the country”” (see Rampart).

I believe if the criteria to the nomination to the Senate were to be limited to members of the Order of Canada and to similar Provincial and Territorial orders of merit, Canada might indeed meet one of Her Majesty The Queen’s possible criteria to relinquishing the Canadian Crown.

Yes, I am a dreamer!

But this is Canada Day and why not!

Happy Canada Day!

A Major Loss for the Senate

With the resignation announcement of Senator Romeo Dallaire, O.C., C.M.M., G.O.Q., C.S.M., C.D., LL.D., the Senate loses an eminent example of what a Senator should be. Senator Dallaire reflects very well the Order of Canada’s motto “Desiderantes meliorem patriam” (They desire a better country). He will surely be missed!

As a result of this major loss, a 10th Senate vacancy needs to be filled.

Possible names have been suggested in the blog post of February 2014 for the previous nine vacancies.

As this vacancy would be from Quebec and limiting the possible nominees to members of the Order of Canada or from the Ordre national du Quebec, the list of possible candidates are some 750 living Quebecois members of the Order of Canada and some 600 members de l’Ordre national du Quebec.

From these, my nominee choice would be Alwyn Morris, former Olympian and member of the Order of Canada. He is of the Mohawk Nation.