Letters

meme

es

+ Letters

The election of a New Democratic
government in Ontario is a tremendous
breakthrough for the people of Canada.
With it comes new responsibilities for the
Left, in and outside of the NDP. It would
be criminally cynical for activists to now
stand aside and wait for the government to
self-destruct as proof of our often repeated
axiom that social democracy will always
“sell out.”

There is a body of a Marxist analysis
which examines why social democratic
governments in trying to protect themsel-
ves from capital turn around and get tough
with workers. The reasons are objective.
The NDP has the government. It does not
have the state. It does not have a mandate
to radically curb capitalism i.e. nationalize
the banks.

However, the election of the NDP in
Canada’s “boom” province, during a
period when neo-conservatism is tighten-
ing its grip not only on the economy, but

Far-reaching potential for labour
seen in NDP election in Ontario

on people’s thinking, has far-reaching
potential.

Taking advantage of the situation will
require a creative approach by political
activists. With the election of a sympa-
thetic government the social movements
tightly expect to see action taken on their
programs. Addressing problems of ine-
quality, oppression and environmental
devastation is of course essential, but we
must go beyond our traditional program-
atic demands.

The best guarantee of the NDP being
able to follow through on its electoral
promises depends on the strength of the
labour and social movements. The role of
these movements could be enhanced by
increasing the democratic rights of work-
ing people and by democratizing the rela-
tionship between government and people.

Changes in labour legislation giving
unions more freedom to organize should
be a priority. The democratization of the
workplace by increasing worker say over

health and safety, training and retraining,
English language and literacy programs
would provide working people with the
skills to take on capital.

Essential is the democratization of the
civil and public service, giving workers
the right to expose corruption and waste
and allowing them the powers they need
to serve, rather than police, the public.

Bob Rae is on the right track with his
announcement ending the premier’s pri-
vilege in making appointments to advi-
sory bodies. But what about going further
and giving the affected constituencies the
right to elect these bodies?

These and similar steps would increase
the strength of the social and labour move-
ments and establish the democratic right
of people to be active participants in the
political process between elections. This
would be a lasting victory for people.

K. Gough,
Toronto

Basic changes needed to ensure
functioning of ‘real democracy’

In Canada we certainly do not live in a
democracy. In a republic, perhaps, which is
something very different.

In a republic the people hand over the

‘power of government to a few elected others
for a term of years. What these elected ones
do with that power is their business, no one
else’s. The electors have no power what-
soever between elections. Neither do they
have any say in how the elections themsel-
ves are carried out or anything to do with the
machinery of representation. To pretend that
parliamentary politics in Canada is basically
different to the above is not wishful thinking.
It is self-deception of the worst kind.

5 Right now, and not for the first time in

our history, Canada is in grave danger as a
nation. That’s what “sovereignty” is all
about and why there was such an outcry
from everywhere about the Free Trade

Agreement.

Various elements go toward maintaining
this uncertainty. One which is rarely men-
tioned, is the politically puerile idea of put-
ting faith in a one party government.

The whole history of our country has
shown that this is a futile and divisive pro-
cedure.

Consider for a moment just what dem-
ocracy means. At the very least it is the
actual amount of control ordinary people
possess, in practice, to run their country,
their province, city or any organization they
have formed themselves into.

The more power the people possess in all
its forms the better democracy works. It is
the only one we use in all the thousands of
popular organizations in our society,
whether it’s a camera club, an ethnic as-
sociation or a trade union. In all such cases
democracy is applied automatically and suc-
cessfully. The members are well aware that
if they do not use these principles their or-
ganization is in peril.

‘A majority of Canadians"
voted against Mulroney
candidates in 1988 — yet
they became government
for us all.’

But when we go from these organizations
and into the parliaméntary and political
arena nothing is the same. In the last few
years alone, for example, because of defec-
tive electoral rules a majority of electors
voted against the Mulroney candidates in the
1988 federal election. Yet they became the
government for us all.

Or again, Bill Vander Zalm became pre-
mier of British Columbia not by a vote of the
electors but by the wishes of a tiny group of
his fellow party members. Further, this
anomaly was accepted by the B.C. legisla-
ture as a whole.

Yet once more. City councils can and do
spend taxpayers’ money any way they wish.
They can and often do perform acts which
benefit a small number of people at the
expense of the many. But there is no way
they can be removed from office before their
term is expired.

The ill-fated Meech Lake Accord would,
if instituted, have largely destroyed the na-
tional character of our nation by allowing
each province the power to disrupt any all-
Canada legislation. It was significant that
the whole concept of the “accord” was orig-
inally agreed to and publicly boosted by 11
men entirely on their own — ten premiers
and Mulroney.

If we want to stop such crippling happen-

ings for Canada as the FTA, if we want to
see no repetition of the congratulations
given in our name to the intemational gang-
ster actions of the U.S. in Panama, then basic
changes must be made in how the country is
governed.

That can only happen if the method by
which representatives are elected and the
rules by which they hold office are drastical-
ly altered.

The first thing, then, is to have some kind
of proportional representation. There are
literally hundreds to choose from. But most
of them would be better than the present
system which ensures that the group with the
richest backers, and the favourite of amono-
poly news industry, always wins.

The second necessity is that the electors
have the right of recall of all representatives
at any time and, with proper safeguards
against abuse, this be firmly imbedded in the
constitution.

Which raises the third component re-
quired toward real, practical democracy —
aconstitution itself, something sadly lacking
at present. There are, of course, a bunch of
make-believe “principles’ but these are
mostly ambiguous illusions.

For example, all judges are appointed,
selected, by the political ruling party. Who
knows just what the power of these judges
is. All we do know is that only a few people
had the slightest say in their appointment.
Consequently, it’s very hard to know what
your civil rights are.

Another general term for democracy, and
perhaps a very accurate one is “fair play.”
This means no favouritism, no pulling of
rank or wealth when caught in anti-social
behaviour.

So there’s a great deal to do if we want to

goon having any kind of country of our own.

Bill Campbell,
Kamloops

Echoes of
N. Ireland
inarmy’s

Oka action

I have always felt that there were
many similarities between Irish
people and aboriginal peoples of
this country. We both come from
groups who are viewed with the
same racist blinkers. We are both
seen as people who have too many

time, are irresponsible, lazy,
child-like, and superstitious. We are
both seen to have some genetic
inclination towards mental illness
and are told that our indigenous
language and culture have no place
in a “modern” world.

I recently returned from a month
in Ireland where I visited “The
North” for the first time. There I
saw one section of the population
being terrorized by the “Security
Forces.” These forces are there to
uphold the rights of the settler
population against the indigenous
peoples’ claim to their own land.

The Security Forces are made up
of the police force (Royal Ulster
Constabulary - descendants of
settlers) who are backed up by
soldiers (occupying troops of the
British Army).

There I witnessed first hand
these heavily armed combined
Security Forces doing house raids,
taunting and threatening women and
children, and saw evidence of their
torture and killings. I visited a
prison where only one section of the
population experiences brutality
while the other section of the
population makes up the entire
workforce. I experienced a society
where the media is censored
through actual banning orders so
that only one point of view is ever
permitted to be heard.

Throughout the years of trying to
discuss the “Irish situation” with
people in Canada I have, many
times, been told to leave “that
situation” in Ireland where it
belongs. Irish immigrants to Canada
came here to forget about it, and
many other Canadians of settler
descent don’t even want to think
about it. Most aboriginal peoples of
North America see their situation as
different.

After a month in Ireland, I came
back to Canada and had a hard time
figuring out what was “different”
about this country. Seeing the
“Security Forces” moving in on the
Mohawk First Peoples in Quebec
didn’t look much different from
what I had just seen in Northern
Treland. It seems the Irish situation
is indeed being experienced in
Canada — and it wasn’t imported
from Ireland either!

Roisin Sheehy-Culhane,
Vancouver

children, who drink and fight all the

Pacific Tribune, October 1, 1990 « 5

ns

so nee enema ct