This post over at Stageleft should be getting more attention.
Canadians across this land are increasingly feeling unrepresented and powerless - and powerless to change that situation. There's good reason for this and it's not just about our cruddy electoral system, vicious attack ads, parliamentary pissing contests, elitist party financing, and so on.
More crucially than any of those, it's the assumption that, as Canada continued stretching its boundaries east, west and north to include hugely diverse regions whose very diversity partly stems from their geography, the federation could remotely (literally) fairly represent and serve the diverse interests of all the people who live within it.
Federations are fine for geographically similar or smaller countries. They don't work for countries as large as Canada.
Go read Stageleft. He states it better than I.
See also this post which Daphne and I wrote back in January, and this one written by James Bow.
Recommend this Post
Monday, June 29, 2009
Canada No Longer Popular Among Canadians
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think you have some confusion in your terminology. A federation is a state administrative system designed for large geographic areas. In fact the geographically largest states in the world (Russia, Canada, China, USA, Australia and India) are all federations. In a federation, local federated units (provinces, states, cantons, etc) have sovereignty over local issues.
It looks like you are confusing a federation with a unitary state where there is only a central government.
I believe that you are arguing that our current federation is too centralized and you'd like a less centralized version, perhaps a more confederal model.
Gee thanksEvil, it doesn't make any dif though, none, scintilla. Riddle that.
I always thought that Canada was a union in northern North America of the English, Irish, Scottish, and French based on Canada's coat-of-arms.
Unitary governments do well in countries that have one dominant socio-economic and cultural centre. For example, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland fit this category.
Federal governments do well in countries that don't have a single socio-economic or cultural centre. Ask yourself where the socio-economic centre of Germany is. While Berlin is the capital, it is largely a regional city in Germany. Others include Frankfurt, Munich, and Hamburg. What is the socio-economic centre of the US? What is the socio-economic-centre of Canada? Is it Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, or Winnipeg? This likely cannot be answered.
The problem with Canada's federalism is that Parliament is effectively run like a unitary institution under highly centralized control in the PM's office. Senators are practically appointed by the PM. They don't represent the people or their provinces. They only represent the PM (and the crown).
If one thinks of confederal representation, the UN is a fairly good example. Each country, big and small, has one vote in the general assembly. The United States and Luxembourg have one vote each.
To Anon@12:04 AM
It makes a large difference if you are arguing that large countries don't do well as federations, which is demonstrably false. It can be argued that our particular federation is too centralized, but conversion to a unitary state (elimination of the federation) would run counter to the argument presented by Chrystal Ocean, unless your argument is that the break up of Canada is preferred to a federal/confederal system.
When setting up an argument, it is important for us to have a common set of terms so that we argue less about terminology and more about substance.
I'm all for a republic, and also it would be nice to get rid of that old lady in charge and finally stop giving her credit for everything we do. The system we see today is a bit too centralized and I believe becoming a republic would change that once and for all.
Take care, Lorne
Federalism is the current blight we are forced to live under, the whole "a strong central government is necessary for the good of the country" concept is (and this really should come as no surprise to anyone) an invention of the central government to gain and maintain power.
I want, at least initially, a republic where decision making power rests with the provinces and the municipalities - in other words, a government closer to the people it governs.
To Stageleft:
A republic can be just as centralized as what we have now. What you are actually talking about is still a federation, but with more power to the provinces and less to Ottawa. Pushing things more towards a confederal model.
All a republic would do would replace the Queen with a president.
A republic could be centralized, the model I have suggested is not.
I suggested a republic because it is a model of government that (by definition) specifically does not have a monarch as its head.
While republics "usually" have a president it is not a requirement.
Post a Comment