Getting the "government" We Deserve

[Fry]

Took the words from my mouth. I got nothing against ya Dogboy, but either you're lying about spellcheck, or it's broken... It's a bit hard to read your posts when words are incorrectly spelled.

 

[Gunnar]

Aye all ways use the spell cheque two.   Seams too me that sum of the miss steaks are in you sage.

Y'know?

 

[Dogboy]

learning disability. Iv had to deal with it for years you can deal with it for a min.

and I'm of the view I pay taxes and I reseve gov. cervices then I have the right to give my opinion
the only people who cant Tell the gov. what to do are the ones who don't live hear.

 

[Fry]

Man, I don't have anything against you or anything but honestly, it's a real chore to read your posts and try to figure them out. Yes it's only a few spelling errors, but if you're not sure on a word,  head to www.dictionary.com or somethin and check it out.

 

[a_majoor]

http://mhintze.tripod.com/school/HST498F-2_democracy_in_athens.htm

DEMOCRACY IN ATHENS

Michael Hintze
History 498 F
May 8, 1991

Athens, during the time of Socrates, had a unique governmental system which is often called the only "true" democracy in history.  Although the system was not perfect, it allowed for the citizens of Athens to directly take part in their government, not by electing well known politicians to represent their interests, but by representing their own interests and the interests of the polis through direct participation in the policy making bodies and the administration of the polis.

The governmental system of Athens consisted of two main bodies, the Ecclesia (Assembly) and the Boule (Council).[1]  The members of the Ecclesia were all the adult male citizens of Athens.  Although the number of eligible members was probably somewhere between twenty-five and thirty-five thousand, the number of people who actually met was more like five or six thousand.[2]  For certain issues such as grants of citizenship or ostracism, a quorum of 6,000 was required.[3]  The Ecclesia met on a regular basis, 40 times per year.  They could also call additional special meetings if circumstances warranted.  All major policy decisions, even including at times military strategy, were made in the Ecclesia. [4]  In contrast to what is generally meant by the term "democracy" today, the Athenian system was not government through representatives of the people; it was instead a "true" democracy, government by the people, in which all the citizens of Athens were allowed to directly participate in the vital decisions required for governing a powerful polis.[5]

The other major governmental body was the Boule.  This body consisted of 500 male citizens over the age of 30 chosen annually by lot for one-year terms.  No citizen could serve in the Boule two consecutive years or for more than two years in his life. The 500 were divided evenly from among each of the ten tribes (50 from each) that were established by Cleisthenes in the early fifth century.[6]  Each tribe took the presidency for one-tenth of the year in a rotation determined by lot.  A new chairman was chosen daily from the presiding tribe (prytany), also by lot.

The Boule tended to contain mainly upper or middle class citizens.  Since the members were paid about one-half a laborer's rate of pay and serving required a lengthy time commitment, farmers and the very poor could not afford to take significant amounts of time off to serve in the Boule. [7]  Furthermore, those from the lower classes may have been hesitant to assume a position of great visibility and prominence.[8]

The main function of the Boule was to set the agenda, prepare the business, and send recommendations (probouleumas) to the Ecclesia.  The Ecclesia could not pass any decree unless the Boule had previously passed a formal resolution introducing the topic and placing it on the agenda.  The probouleumas sent to the Ecclesia by the Boule could be in the form of a decree which could then simply be "rubber stamped" if the issue was not controversial.[9]  Other probouleumas were left open or non-committal, perhaps with the Boule offering one or more recommendations or options, so that the people (the Demos) in the Ecclesia could debate and make the final decisions on the various issues.  On highly contested issues or those of major importance, the Boule could simply place the matter on the agenda without offering any recommendations.

When the Ecclesia received a probouleuma from the Boule, it had several options.  It could not only accept or reject the Boule's recommendations, it could also amend a recommendation or it could substitute a completely different motion relating to the same general topic.[10]

It is clear that the Ecclesia was the main policy making body of the Athenian democratic government.  The final decisions were regarding all major issues was made by the demos through the institution of the Ecclesia.

In contrast, the Boule was not a policy making body, at least not directly.  Instead it was more of a "screening committee" for the Ecclesia [11] which was supposed to determine the merit and legality of a given proposal and separate out those that were imprudent, senseless and/or illegal.  It seems clear, however, that the power to determine what shall be put on the agenda is a significant, though indirect, policy making power which the Boule had at its disposal.  While it could not give final approval to a decree relating to public policy, it could prevent a given issue from being discussed in the Ecclesia.  If modern political practices are to serve at all as a guide, it is at least feasible that should the Boule decide it wanted a certain decree to be passed by the Ecclesia, it could hold another issue which the Ecclesia wanted to be put on the agenda "hostage" until the given decree was passed.  Thus, even within the framework which did not give the Boule any direct policy making powers, the potential to significantly influence public policy certainly did exist.  Probably the reason we do not hear of the Boule often engaging in such tactics is that since the members could not serve two years in a row or more than two years in a lifetime, the body had no chance to develop a corporate sense as an independent policy making body.

To the modern student of Athenian democracy, it may seem unbelievable that such a system could work so well for so long.  How can a government operate when its most important decisions are subject to the whims of popular opinion?  What kept the Athenian system from degenerating into mob-rule?  The evidence clearly shows that, despite a limited number of rash or unwise decisions, the Athenian democracy performed remarkably well.  Its success can be attributed, in part, to institutional safeguards that were built into the system.  As stated previously, the fact that the Boule screened the business to be placed before the Ecclesia for action was supposed to prevent illegal of unwise proposals from even getting on the agenda. [12]  Furthermore, the author of a measure and/or the presiding chairman could be indicted or penalized should the measure later prove to be ill-advised or illegal.[13]  Thus, there was a high level of accountability, and men were usually cautious in the proposals they put forward.

The administration of the polis was carried out by a large number of boards which were selected annually by lot for very specific duties. [14]  The members of the boards had to undergo a preliminary examination, and the boards themselves were overseen by the Boule and reviewed at the end of the year by the courts. [15]  The only elected positions in the polis were the ten generals and a few technical experts. [16]  The Athenians saw elections as aristocratic rather than democratic because those men with the most widely recognized names would inevitably win elections, while the practice of choosing positions by lot would guarantee a more representative sample of the citizen population in the administrative boards, the Boule, and other governmental positions.

Although the Athenian system has often been described as the ideal democratic structure, there was, as in all political systems, the opportunity for ambitious individual politicians to exert substantial influence.  It is obvious that a skilled orator could have been quite influential in the Ecclesia in guiding and shaping the decisions of the whole body.  There was still the rule, however, that an issue could only be put on the agenda by the Boule.  Thus, if an individual wanted to get an item on the agenda, he could try to ensure that he had friends in the Boule who could introduce an item, he could make a written application to the Boule asking that it take up a certain topic, or he could move in the Ecclesia that the Boule pass a probouleuma on a specific issue.[17]

Toward the end of the fifth century and through the fourth, professional or semi-professional politicians became more prominent. [18]  For these orators, politics became an almost full-time job.  They would have to spend their time, not only attending the meetings of the Ecclesia, put they would have to devote extra hours to keeping up on various issues such as foreign affairs and domestic agricultural production.  They also would have, no doubt, spent time outside of the regular Ecclesia meetings promoting their issues through private contacts with prominent and influential citizens.  Such politicians were generally from the upper classes and had some independent wealth.  Some supplemented their income by writing speeches for private litigants or perhaps by accepting bribes from foreign powers who's interests they supported in the Ecclesia.  More often, they would charge fees in exchange for the promotion of measures that were in their client's favor.[19]

The Athenian democratic government was innovative in its own time and unique throughout history.  It is the closest example that has ever existed to the democratic ideal of direct rule by the people.  Virtually every position in the government was chosen by lot and there were restrictions against serving repeatedly in any given position.  While such regulations ensured a very democratic government, they usually were at the expense of continuity and efficiency.  The system had built into it certain safeguards which kept it from breaking down, but only so much as were absolutely necessary and not enough to allow the system to become aristocratic or oligarchic.  The Athenian system was not perfect, but it operated very well for two full centuries.  Perhaps its success can only be explained by the Athenians' devotion to their polis and their governmental system.  This devotion is expressed by Pericles in his famous funeral oration.  "Everyone is equal before the law... We are free and tolerant in our private lives; but in public affairs we keep to the law.  This is because it commands our deep respect.  ...each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well."[20]  Such devotion and respect on the part of the Athenian people not only allowed the democratic system to survive, but it enabled it to thrive during a period in which Athens achieved political, artistic, and intellectual greatness, which like their governmental system, was and is unique in history.

[1] While the terms "Assembly" and "Council" are often used to speak of the Ecclesia and the Boule respectively, they both vague terms that carry misleading connotations.  These institutions are unique to Athens of the classical period an thus will be referred to by their own unique names.

Some ideas we might consider to prevent debacles like the Liberal overthrow of the constitution.

 

[PeterLT]

What a great exchange of ideas, some eloquent some not so.

All I can do is speak for me, sitting here on Vancouver Island. And if sounds like a rant, well then just humour me. As a Westerner (25 years now) born in Quebec and raised in the US, Canadian politics has always been somewhat of a peculiar thing to me. Here we have a system where the whole is essentially governed by one province. Heck, here out west, apart from meagre local representation, our vote means nothing since any decisions are essentially made in Ontario. Our resources are tapped by the east for their benefit and we have little or no say in how things are run. As I recall in gradeschool in Syracuse, N.Y., that is called taxation without (fair) representation. We are treated as "rednecks", "racists", "backwards" or worst by those who apparently know better than we. People who we elect as representing our views are ridiculed as being "scary", or having a "hidden" agenda or even worse.

Much of all this is levied by a government that has been caught openly stealing large amounts of taxpayer money on more than one occasion. A government that flagrantly disregards at a whim what might be regarded as basic parliamentary principles in a free society and will stoop to any and all means just to preserve the tenet that they are the "natural ruling party". And when anyone points it out or suggests there might be an alternative, they are slandered to the point of the obscene.

That anyone would (or could) support such a thing is beyond me. So I suppose that in my humble opinion; in answer to the topic of the string, I think that certainly, (at least) Ontario has the Federal government it deserves.

I think that in years to come I will always remember this Canada Day as a turning point for me. It's the point in my life where I really doubt if this entity we now know as "Canada" can survive as it is. In fact I think that perhaps it shouldn't. It's just too unfair to far too many and is too heavily influenced by special interest groups pandered to by the corrupt.

Well, just the ranting of someone who probably doesn't know what he's talking about........talk amongst yourselves....

 

[Infanteer]

Athens is lauded for its system of governance - one of my Classics professors said that Athens had the greatest press-writer in history because it claimed to be unique and extraordinary when, with a closer examination of the Constitutions of some of the 700 poleis of Greece, it is apparent that the Athenian experiment was not quite as unique as some think.

 

[Wayne Coady]

I never suggested that we not vote, I suggested that we stop supporting political parties. My reasons for not supporting parties has been well documented in Canadian history, they all lie , cheat and steal from us and the person we think we elect, once elected must follow party line.

Thus we get a bunch of sheep proping up an   oligarchy . It is my opinion that political parties are used as vehicles by the few to achieve their own benefits and POWER. It is also my opinion that we need to reform how we do politics here in Canada and I offer up the possibilities of looking towards a Consensus democratic government, it is time to put more control in the hands of the constituents, where it belongs and not with less than 2% of the voting population and remember only 2% of the voting Canadian population belong to political parties.  
Take a look at this information, read and research   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy  .
Vote, just do not vote for a party candidate.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Political parties can be very useful. For a lot of people they define the political spectrum within a state. They also make it possible for low and middle income persons to be able to run for office by shouldering much of the cost of an election campaign. Now, I am not denying that we seem to be saddled with corruption because of the party system but I believe that getting rid of the party is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've posted this before (not sure if it was on this forum though) but here it is, from my own musings for a political party platform:

The Democratic Contract:  The party is resolved to institute a system whereby Canadians are given the opportunity to vote on and select through their majority the policies and projects the government will pursue.  The document will take the form of a legally binding contract between the people of Canada (witnessed by the Governor General) and the Government of the Dominion of Canada outlining the people's direction to the government. The contract will consist of two classes of guidance, Mandatory and Directive.

Mandate: This guidance will outline policies that the government must implement in compliance with the established wishes of the majority within four years in office. Should the Government act contrary to the peoples mandate at any time, the Governor General will have the ability to dissolve Parliament on behalf of the people. Similarly should it be determined by the Supreme Court that a government, upon completion of four years of its term, has not pursued the completion of a mandate in good faith then the Governor General can initiate the same action. 

Directive: A directive will establish, in general terms, those policies that should be pursued as a matter of course in the day to day operation of the government. They are secondary tasks for government and or general guidelines for the conduct of the government. Failure to follow or complete a directive will have no effect upon the continuance of government but can be used by the people to determine compliance with their general wishes.

I believe this contractual type of democracy would ensure that
1. The people would be forced to pay more attention to policy thus delivering us from the political popularity game that our elections have become
2. Eliminate the ability of the party in power to make bold faced lies to the people
3. Reduce the purely partisan bickering which wastes so much time in the HoC

It would be necessary to either have two separate elections (one on which the policies are established and one (a month later?) where the MP's are elected) or a single ballot where the policies are decided and the MP elected.

I personaly prefer the first option, this would enable the parties and the MP's to form their action plan on the agenda decreed by the people and make their point for the implimentation of it.

Reccesoldier in the open! On your own time... fire!  :dontpanic:

 

[Wayne Coady]

The three main parties in this province are Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat. These parties pick and prepare the candidates and when the election rolls around, these parties help finance and promote their candidates. Financing has traditionally come from those in the business community or unions who are anything but altruists. They expect something in return for their investments of cash, and past performances by the two parties that have formed governments have never let their investors down.
Any party that has achieved a majority government in Nova Scotia has financed projects for business with thinly disguised loans from taxpayer-fed coffers. Grants that are supposedly available to anybody invariably make their way to party supporters of the government of the day much more easily and frequently than to those who supported the other side. In the middle is the poor (literally and figuratively) taxpayer who is always on the hook for the bad loans and financial ineptitude of those who manage to take care of their own first.
How often have we all heard the term "backroom boys"?
They do exist and they are the people who really determine a government's direction and policies, not the electorate. These are the people with the money, and we know the old equation: money equals power.
Only as an afterthought does the voter come into play.
Parties are not about to change, and anyone who thinks they can make long-term changes from within a party's structure will find themselves involved in an exercise in futility.
The only alternative to government by party is government by consensus, whose members are independent in thought and motivated by their own sense of decency and desire for a government that is fiscally and morally responsible to the people for its actions, and not to the party.
For example the Elections Act of Nova Scotia is constituted to allow for any person to run as an independent candidate in this province. Five signatures on your nomination papers and $100 can qualify you as a candidate, assuming you don't have a criminal record. Judging by the quality of government and leadership we have had thus far from the parties that have hijacked us in the past, it's high time we all started to think outside of the box as a means to elect governments that are responsible and responsive to the people who elect them.

Reccesoldier,I think this discussion is one that all Canadians should be having and  I appreciate your civilized discussion, but never the less the party system which consist of less than 2% of the voting population holds to much power over the other 98% of the voting population , not to mention those who have lost interest in voting too. 
Wayne Coady lives in Dartmouth. E-mail: wcoady@accesswave.ca

 

[Fry]

The three main parties in this province are Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat. Only as an afterthought does the voter come into play.

Incorrect there Mr. Coady, it's "Conservative" Not Progressive Conservative. That changed a little while ago.

 

[Infanteer]

He's talking about Nova Scotia.

 

[Wayne Coady]

Incorrect there Mr. Coady, it's "Conservative" Not Progressive Conservative. That changed a little while ago.

Please is that the best you can do, never the less they are all still political parties and that is what this is about. In Canada we have four main parties, the ConServatives, Liberal, New Democratic and the Bloc , all have lied , stolen and cheated on we the voters. Those who benefited from the party system are the few who have used the party structure to high-jack what was once the peoples "government" , but now has been turned into nothing more than a well oiled criminal machine.

The only ProGressive ConServative left is David Orchard any way. But I still say that Canada needs to reform the way we elect and the way the elected get away with abusing their power and breaching our trust. We need to build in more accountability and give the Auditor General's Department more power to act as the tax payers head controller. Remember its your money , so you should want the "government" to spend it wisely, shouldn't you?

Think about this FRY, a political party has been elected to govern, they waste the taxpayer infrastructure dollars on thing like the Ad Scam or pull a Mulroney on us. The party gets away with the tax payers loot and pass the blame off as being fault of  "government" , now FRY isn't "government " suppose to be we the people? 

Yes who ever came up with this party concept, sure knew how to pull the wool over the voters eyes didn't they ? When will we ever learn?

 

[Dogboy]

its stuff like this that makes me think a Anarchy stile sistom would work better
no one in charge no one to be corrupted

 

[Wayne Coady]

its stuff like this that makes me think a Anarchy stile sistom would work better
no one in charge no one to be corrupted

No we do not want A lack of civil order or peace, this is no what I am asking us to debate. I am asking that Canadians look towards reforming how we pick our elected representatives, this is something we do not do now. Candidates are chosen by a political party and that candidate is promoted by the party , thus the candidate must follow   party line.

I am suggesting that we make the candidate accountable to the constituency population he or she wishes to represent. The platform which will be carried forward to Ottawa or the provincial legislature must be that of the constituency , not some self serving political party. Proportional representation and recall are two elements discussed so far as ways to reform, but as long as we leave the power and control of our elected candidates in the hands of a political parties, we will not achieve accountability in government.

Switzerland   is a good template for us here in Canada to look at, but then again if we are looking to consensus government , then we only have to look at how our regional municipal governments work, they are closer to the people. If a cities such as Toronto, Montreal or Victoria with their large populations can work on consensus, then why not provinces and yes even a county?

Right now what we have in Ottawa are political parties being forced to work together for the good of all Canadians and as soon as they stop fighting like school yard children and really start getting down to business the better off we all will be. The only thing that is wrong with the way they are doing business is they are shackled by the parties mandate, where as it should be the peoples mandate.

Canada has been split up by these parties into regions and as our western friend states all the power seems to be in the hands of those living in Ontario, please this is not a slap at the citizens of that fine province either, but we must consider why this is. Political parties have divided Canada in so many ways, they did this for their own selfish reasons and this must change as well. I been across Canada and up North, we have the fines piece of real estate on the planet, with the great citizens, but we have a corrupt political system and we can do better.

Well you all have a great day with your families and think about what you or more to the point we can do to take back our "government" and improve politics in Canada, making it even a better country than it all ready is. God bless those in our military I   every one of you.

 

[Fry]

Anarchy isn't the answer, and anarchy isn't what many think it is. I'd bet the majority of young people (MTV Generation) Think of anarachy as no rules, and people rocking out with their tunes as long as they want. Don't get me wrong, I love my tunes, but anarchy definately isn't the answer.

 

[Wayne Coady]

I'd bet the majority of young people (MTV Generation) Think of anarachy as no rules, and people rocking out with their tunes as long as they want. Don't get me wrong, I love my tunes, but anarchy definately isn't the answer.

Well most of the youth I know understand more about the political picture here in Canada than you give them credit for. Lets not forget that the demographics are changing fast and it will be the youth who will carry this country into the future. The youth understand what political parties are used for and by whom, they are looking way ahead and understand economic and environmental issues much better than we did in our day, we are of the industrial age, and the youth of to day see how industry has taken a toll on the environment, thus they are prepared to improve, step into new clean projects.

We have an educated youth, more have crossed the threshold of higher learning   and have grown up connected to the world, thanks to the computer and internet. Imagine,here we are in a discussion on politics in Canada and we have never met, this would not have been possible before and if it had, maybe we "Canada" would be in a much better place politically.

The baby boomer's on the other hand are becoming more upset at the way our politicians are playing with their lives and have been through out their working life, but were to busy to notice, they now are retired or retiring and have the time to pay attention.

Remember it was the political parties who played off the youth against the aging and they used the debt as their weapon. They told the youth it was the baby boomer's who created the debt and that it would be them, our grand children who would have to pay it off, well now both are seeing just who mismanaged the tax dollars and the latest ad scandal which the Liberal Party created provided the proof. But then again all parties have been doing the same thing with "your" / "our " taxes haven't they?  
No FRY, our youth deserve more credit than that, I sure they understand what anarchy is and I am sure they do not want that for Canada.

 

[Kat Stevens]

its stuff like this that makes me think a Anarchy stile sistom would work better
no one in charge no one to be corrupted

Let me see if I get this...  You are, or want to be, in the army.  The army is only maintained by strict order and discipline, in fact, the antithesis of anarchy.  Here's how anarchy works:  "Nice jacket, Dogboy...I think I'll take it... No?" BANG!  "Thanks."

Kat

 

[48Highlander]

Let me see if I get this...   You are, or want to be, in the army.   The army is only maintained by strict order and discipline, in fact, the antithesis of anarchy.   Here's how anarchy works:   "Nice jacket, Dogboy...I think I'll take it... No?" BANG!   "Thanks."

Kat

Actually, no, that's not anarchy, that's a form of tyrany.  Ruling through force and intimidation.  Anarchy is actualy, in theory, an ideal system.  The problem is that just like communism, it only works in theory.  Whenever a state of anarchy has existed in the past, it has without fail been replaced by another polytical system within a very short time period.  Usualy either tribalism or tyrany.

 

[Wayne Coady]

Let me see if I get this...   You are, or want to be, in the army.   The army is only maintained by strict order and discipline, in fact, the antithesis of anarchy.   Here's how anarchy works:   "Nice jacket, Dogboy...I think I'll take it... No?" BANG!   "Thanks."

Kat

Kat you understand , this is pretty much how it works now, the party says, it your land , I want it and they take it with out the bang " so far". I want a " government" that works for all , not the few. This is why we need to look at political reform, we need to bring down the bully , before he does us our "government " as his gun. Accountability is the magic word.

You guys all have a good day, I am off to New Brunswick to spend Canada Day evening with my sister.

Highlander: The noun anarchy has one meaning a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)