Christian Editor Disses Trump

Donald Trump may have evangelical Christians wrapped around his tiny finger, but at least one of note has expressed a dissenting view. Editor in chief Mark Galli of the magazine Christianity Today has torn a strip off the president. Galli writes that Trump's actions in Ukraine are "a violation of the Constitution" as well as "profoundly immoral," and goes on to describe the president as of "grossly immoral character." Strong stuff. And a loud voice. Christianity Today, founded by Billy Graham in 1956, has long been a leading voice among evangelicals.

So does this mean Trump is losing evangelicals? Not likely. Other leaders, including Billy Graham's son, are rallying around the president. Galli himself said he doubts he changed many minds. Furthermore, he will soon be leaving the magazine, perhaps leaving it in the hands of lesser men.

But the editorial is at least a spark of light in the evangelical gloom. It is encouraging that at least one of the faithful is sickened by supposed moral leaders doting on a degenerate politician. “If we don’t reverse course now," Galli asked, "will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?” A cynic might answer that, outside of the congregation, not many have been taking what evangelicals say about justice and righteousness seriously for a long time. Nonetheless, he has at least indicated there is still a conscience in the Bible Belt.

Are Albertans Regretting Their Decision?

Jason Kenney and his UCP  won a convincing victory in Alberta's April election, winning 55 percent of the popular vote, impressive in a country where 40 percent often gains a party a majority government. Yet in only eight months, Albertans seemed to have reversed their opinion. A ThinkHQ poll found that 53 percent now disapprove of the government's performance with only 44 per cent approving. Two other polls, by DART and Angus Reid, confirmed the reversal and showed the premier's approval also slipping.

ThinkHQ suggests this is a result of growing concerns about jobs, the economy and the new government's budget-tightening. Concern about jobs was up 14 points since October and only 39 percent of Albertans approve of the government's handling of health care. However, the belt-tightening shouldn't have surprised anyone, even when it was accomplished by combining a generous tax cut to corporations with the shrinking of public services. The UCP is a conservative party after all. Perhaps some conservatives naively thought everyone would share in the tightening.

Other possibilities include the shenanigans that went on during Kenney's campaign for leader of his party. This might have put a bad taste in some conservatives' mouths. And the government firing the guy who was investigating the scandal may have offended those who respect the rule of law.

Then there's Kenney's combative nature which leads him to lavish millions on various paranoid pursuits of "enemies." Although no doubt many conservatives support these follies, others may think the money could be better spent elsewhere ... say, on health care and education.

And is it possible that the premier's cavalier attitude toward global warming is causing unease at least among those conservatives who recognize the gravity of the crisis? Nah, now I'm clutching at straws.

Is the Democratic World Losing India?

India has been a jewel in the crown of democracy ever since it achieved independence in 1947. Despite mass poverty, religious and caste violence, insurgencies, separatism in Jammu and Kashmir, and feuds with its neighbours, it has remained democratic with respect for civil liberties, an active supreme court and a free press. However since the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014, the country has begun to slide into strongman rule as the BJP increasingly recasts the country from a secular democracy to a Hindu state. The BJP is essentially the political arm of the country’s main Hindu nationalist organization, the fascistic Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Since Modi came to power, there has been an increase in discrimination and violence against minorities, including mob lynchings, with Muslims, the country's largest minority, bearing the brunt. He has suspended Article 370 of the constitution which grants autonomy to Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state. He has flooded the state with troops and detained hundreds of prominent Muslims. Recently, the BJP passed a citizenship law which allows non-Muslim immigrants from neighboring nations to seek citizenship in India, the country's first law that explicitly excludes Muslims.

Under intimidation from Modi and his allies, the press has become remarkably docile and approving of Modi's "New India." By selectively pulling government advertising and pressuring private companies to follow suit, he has largely silenced mainstream media. And according to his deputy, Amit Shah, the BJP's social media networks are an irresistible force.

Even the police have at times appeared intimidated, standing by or even participating during Hindu-Muslim conflicts. Courts, too, have been corrupted. The BJP have been rewriting school textbooks and renaming sites to fit the Hindu narrative. Meanwhile the RSS claims it runs thousands of schools and hospitals, a network of trade unions, the largest network of farmers, and the largest social-welfare organization working in the slums. A state unto itself.

Modi cut his political teeth in the state of Gujarat where he served as chief minister. During his tenure, riots killed thousands and drove tens of thousands from their homes. Evidence suggests the rioting was largely planned and directed by the RSS, possibly with government complicity. Thus his behaviour as prime minister is not a surprise. When Ashis Nandy, a trained psychologist, interviewed Modi during a study of the mentality of Hindu nationalists, he concluded that "Modi was a fascist in every sense." He had a puritanical, authoritarian personality and an enormous ego guarding a gnawing insecurity.

Some Indians see a grim future in all this. According to Krishna Prasad, former editor of the newsweekly Outlook, “Gandhi and Nehru were great, historic figures, but I think they were an aberration. It’s very different now. The institutions have crumbled—universities, investigative agencies, the courts, the media, the administrative agencies, public services. And I think there is no rational answer for what has happened, except that we pretended to be what we were for fifty, sixty years. But we are now reverting to what we always wanted to be.”

Can this be true? Has India, like so many developing countries, always been more inclined to strongman rule than to democracy? Has 70 years of democracy been a fluke? It would be hard to lose India, not only a developing country but the second most populous nation on Earth. A loss of 1.37-billion people would be a heavy blow to the democratic project.

Trudeau Dumps Democracy Portfolio

Looking over the Prime Minister's new cabinet, one portfolio that stood out because of its absence was Minister of Democratic Institutions. This is, or was, a portfolio with something of a chequered history.

It was first created by Paul Martin in 2003 during his truncated term as prime minister and entitled the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform. Martin had expressed concern about a "democratic deficit." In 2005 the title was changed to "Democratic Renewal" and the portfolio was assumed by Belinda Stronach who had recently crossed the floor from the Conservatives. When the Conservatives won the 2006 election the title reverted to "Democratic Reform." With the election of the Liberals in 2015, the portfolio became "Minister of Democratic Institutions" replete with hope for substantial reform following Justin Trudeau's promise of, among other things, never holding another election under the undemocratic First-Past-the-Post voting system. That promise was, of course, betrayed and we have just experienced another election under FPTP.

It now appears that, with the trashing of the appropriate ministry, the Prime Minister is trashing the whole idea of a democratic voting system. Out of sight, out of mind, for a promise that came back to haunt Mr. Trudeau. Ironically, as discussed in a previous post, support for a proportional system, which would make the people's will manifest in elections, has probably never been higher. Many conservatives, who have traditionally opposed proportional representation, have been converted because in our recent election their party got more votes than the Liberals but they are forced to smoulder in opposition while Justin, he of the good hair, runs the show.

The democrats among us smoulder, too, as even the consideration of a democratic system fades entirely from the federal agenda.

The Quality and the Rabble in American Government

The health of democracy, indeed government generally, often rests more with the quality of a country's civil servants than with the quality of its politicians and their associates. Rarely have we seen as graphic a contrast between the two as we are seeing at the Trump impeachment hearings. On the one hand, we have seen a series of witnesses illustrating the very best in American government, indeed in American society. On the other hand, we have Trump's rabble of enablers and associates.

For example, among the witnesses we have Marie Yovanovitch, former ambassador to the Ukraine, who courageously defied the administration by responding to a subpoena from Congress in order to testify. Her testimony included comments that Trump and his allies’ actions may have encouraged corruption in Ukraine rather than help curb it. Ms. Yovanovitch has given 33 years of sterling service to her country for which she was rewarded with a smear attempt by Trump and his allies.

Then there is Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the White House's top Ukraine expert, who expressed concerns about President Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukraine President to the National Security Council. He testified that it was "completely apparent" that to get a meeting with Trump, the Ukrainian president had to deliver an investigation of Biden's son. Vindman, who was awarded a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq and still carries shrapnel in his body, is currently Director for European Affairs with the National Security Council.

Fiona Hill, a Russian expert, made a particularly powerful witness. Her testimony dismissed the suggestion that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 U.S. election as a "fictional narrative," emphasizing that it was the Russians who "systematically attacked our democratic institutions" and who perpetrated the Ukraine narrative. Hill served as an intelligence analyst under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the National Security Council until she resigned in July.

And there were others, such as such as William B. Taylor, Jr., a decorated Vietnam veteran and top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, who testified that the president of the United States pressured the president of Ukraine to sully the reputation of a political rival, Joe Biden, in exchange for a meeting in the Oval Office and a release of defense funds already approved by Congress. The integrity and dignity of these witnesses shone in bright contrast to the shenanigans of the wretched characters that Trump surrounds himself with, a number of whom are now in jail with more on their way.

The American civil service will require extensive repair after Trump and his minions are through with it. Nonetheless, if there is hope for America through these times of dimmed democracy, it lies largely with the integrity and ability of dedicated civil servants, specifically the integrity and ability of people such as Yovanovitch, Vindman and Hill.

Incidentally, all three are immigrants.

Hong Kong Has Spoken

Hong Kong has spoken, indeed has shouted, and it has shouted "democracy" loud and clear. Pro-democracy candidates secured almost 90 percent of district council seats in Sunday's election, taking control of 17 out of 18 councils, a staggering defeat for the Chinese government and pro-Beijing Chief Executive Carrie Lam. The councils have little power and therefore usually attract little interest, but this election experienced a record turnout, 71 percent, obviously to make a statement. Ms. Lam had said, despite months of demonstrations against her government, that she had the support of a silent majority. On Sunday the majority begged to differ. The unpopular Lam acknowledged that among the issues voters wanted to express their views on included "deficiencies in governance."

"This is a democratic tsunami," said Tommy Cheung, a former student protest leader who won a seat himself. The tsunami is a challenge to Xi Jinping, but he is unlikely to make concessions, and indeed his minion, Lam, has made no concessions. China. after all, needs to send a message to Xinjiang and Taiwan. Beijing predictably blames foreign forces for the protests.

Regardless of what happens next, this display of democratic fervour is deeply refreshing at a time when authoritarianism, nationalism and isolationism are on the rise, and the liberal world order is being tested. The over 70 percent turnout, even though exceptional, was particularly impressive. Our municipal elections commonly get turnouts of closer to 40 percent even though our municipal councils have substantial power. We could use a little of that Hong Kong passion.

Evangelicals and Their Populist Prophets

Christian evangelicals are having good innings in the political sphere these days. First, their man Donald Trump becomes president of the U.S.; then another of their populist heroes, Jair Bolsonaro, becomes president of Brazil; and now Bible-toting evangelical Jeanine Anez has assumed the presidency of Bolivia. Hallelujahs all around.

Curiously, for an ostensibly moral bunch, they seem to have a fatal attraction to bad boys. President Trump, for example, is a misogynistic, racist, lying narcissist without even a distant relationship with common decency. Yet evangelicals love him. Or at least white evangelicals do. He captured 80 per cent of their vote in the 2016 election.

And if Trump is bad, Bolsonaro is outright evil. This homophobic, racist misogynist once called for the assassination of a former president; argued that torture is a legitimate practice; told a fellow female legislator that he wouldn’t rape her because she was ugly; and said he would rather have his son die in an accident than come out as a homosexual. He has referred to the military dictatorship of 1964-1985 as a "glorious" period but faults it for "the error ... that it tortured, but did not kill." Like Trump a climate change denier, he wants to deforest and develop the Amazon. A former military superior once reported he was "lacking logic, rationality and balance.” But a lack of rationality and balance doesn't bother evangelicals. Without their support he wouldn't have become president. Needless to say, he is a fan of Donald Trump.

And most recently, we have right-wing senator Jeanine Anez replacing Evo Morales as president of Bolivia. Although her credentials are more respectable than those of Trump and Bolsonaro, they include a fair measure of bigotry. She has made derogatory statements about the country’s indigenous people, who make up 60 percent of the population, tweeting on one occasion, “I dream of a Bolivia free of Indigenous satanic rites. The city is not for Indians, they should go back to the mountains or the fields.”

What attracts the white religious right to these barbarians is certain common beliefs, particularly around gender, including opposition to abortion and gay rights. They see these leaders as divinely appointed and themselves as the true believers. They tend to view the world in the same fundamentalist way—black/white, good/evil, us/them. Evangelism is a brittle faith, overcome by the challenge of multiple perspectives.

I have often wondered if it isn't this cohort of Americans that explain why the U.S. is among the least compassionate and most vindictive of Western nations. Its foreign aid as a percent of GDP, for example, ranks near the bottom of all developed countries. Its legal system is one of the harshest by Western standards, the only Western country that still has capital punishment. All this in addition to its perpetual waging of war. Not a lot of Christian love and forgiveness here.

Not all white evangelicals are fans of demagogues, of course. In the U.S. there's that 20 percent who didn't vote for Trump. Many of those are no doubt liberal and believe in social inclusion. But the solid majority prefer the visceral appeal of a Trump or a Bolsonaro to the promise of honourable leadership. And their prayers are being answered.

Big Bump for PR (Take Note Mr. Trudeau)

Has this election awakened Canadians to the need for proportional representation? The results of a recent Angus Reid poll certainly suggest so. From the support of under half the electorate following the last election, PR is now supported by over two-thirds.

Support has increased with voters of all parties but most dramatically among Conservatives. In 2016, twice as many Conservatives opposed PR as supported it; now two and a half times as many support it. The fact their party got more votes than the Liberals but Justin Trudeau remains prime minister while they continue to languish in opposition has apparently changed a lot of minds. Liberal voters showed the least increase and are now the least supportive.

NDP and Green voters remain solidly in favour. And so we might expect. The NDP got twice as many votes as the Bloc but fewer seats. The Bloc got only 18 percent more votes than the Greens but ten times as many seats. The Bloc was rewarded for contesting seats only in Quebec while the NDP and the Greens were punished for contesting seats across the country. Thus is regionalism exaggerated, exactly what our highly regionalized country doesn't need.

Support for PR is also strong in all areas of the country. The Prairie Provinces, most opposed to PR in 2016 are now the most supportive. These Conservative voters no doubt noted that the Liberals won almost half the seats in the House with only a third of the vote.

2016 surveys found a lot of "don't knows" or "don't cares." The new survey shows broad, enthusiastic support. Prime Minister Trudeau justified the betrayal of his promise last time arguing there was no consensus for change. He can no longer credibly make that argument. So all you supporters of PR, get out your pens and let him know.

Trump and Israel—So Much for Separation of Church and State

The Trump administration has taken yet another step in its radical support of Israel. Having recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, cut off aid to the Palestinians, and abandoned the Iran agreement, it has now declared that Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land are not necessarily illegal. This represents a dramatic break with decades of international law, US policy and the position of most its allies.

Why, we might wonder, has this administration gone overboard in its support of Israel. The answer is not hard to find. Among Trump's most fervent supporters are white evangelical Christians. Over 80 percent voted for him. Furthermore, his vice-president, Mike Pence, and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, are both born-again Christians, converted from Catholicism, and converts are the most zealous of believers. And Evangelical Christians are the most ardent supporters of Israel, even more so than American Jews.

Indeed the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee avoided praising the decision, simply declaring it does not take a position on settlements. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, urged Trump to reverse course, saying it would cause "long-term threat to Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state" while Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of liberal Jewish advocacy group J Street, accused the Trump administration of "trampling on the rights of Palestinians."

Not all Christians were happy about the decision either. A representative from the National Council of Churches said that it "stands by its long-stated position that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are clear violations of international law." The Presbyterian Church called the rejection of established policy "yet another occasion where the Trump administration is disregarding international law."

Trump’s declaration doesn't affect international law, of course, but it will encourage an expansionist Israel, and make a just settlement for the Palestinians and peace in the area that much more difficult. But to evangelicals the return of the Jews to the Holy Land is a prerequisite to achieving the millennium, the golden age, and ultimate salvation. And they are the ones at Trump's elbow; thus their church dictates the policies of the Trump state.

The Extraordinary Arrogance of "Kamikaze" Kenney

Lorne Gibson, Alberta's elections commissioner, has had his differences with the province's Conservatives. In 2009, he was Alberta's chief electoral officer and, unhappy with the 2008 election, he recommended 182 reforms to the province's electoral system. The Conservative government of the time was not amused and failed to renew his contract. The NDP, however, admired the cut of his jib and hired him for the new office of election commissioner created under the Act to Strengthen and Protect Democracy in Alberta.

Now Gibson has got under the skin of the Conservatives again. He has been investigating the so-called "kamikaze" campaign of Jeff Callaway for leadership of the newly-formed United Conservative Party (UCP). Callaway allegedly entered the race to discredit Kenney's chief rival, Brian Jean, only to drop out and endorse Kenney weeks later. So far Gibson's investigation has resulted in fines against 15 people totaling $207,223. The investigation now may be coming to an end. The UCP has introduced Bill 22 which, among other things, will eliminate the position of elections commissioner.

The election commissioner is an independent officer of the legislature and to fire him in the midst of an investigation of the governing party is an act of extraordinary arrogance. Furthermore, the UCP intends to invoke closure on the bill limiting debate to three hours, all while Premier Kenney ducks the debate entirely with a visit to Texas.

The UCP has said that the chief electoral officer could rehire Gibson or a replacement and continue the investigation. However, there is no timeline and, in any case, the current chief electoral officer's contract is up in April. The UCP will then choose a new officer which, considering they are under investigation, is rather like a defendant in court choosing his own judge. The RCMP is also investigating the UCP leadership race. Fortunately Kenney doesn't have his own police force, but of course he's looking into that as well.

Kenney is ruling Alberta more like a strongman than a democrat, perhaps taking a cue from the pipeline-loving president of our good neighbour to the south.

Democracy or Putinism?

Vladimir Putin has been quoted as saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." Whether or not his words have been interpreted correctly is a matter of dispute; nonetheless, his compatriots apparently agree with the sentiment. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, over 60 percent of Russians consider it a "great misfortune that the Soviet Union no longer exists," an increase in 13 points since 2011. The sentiment was strongest among older Russians, those who spent most of their lives in the USSR, but even half of millennials agreed.

Fewer than a quarter of Russians say ordinary people have benefited since 1991, while most say life is worse than it was under communism. Two-thirds are dissatisfied with how "democracy" functions in Russia.

Does this reflect badly on democracy? Not at all. As I pointed out in a previous post, people in most East European countries believe their lives have improved since the Berlin Wall fell, and are supportive of democracy and free markets. And they certainly don't miss the Soviet Union. Of the eight former Soviet bloc countries surveyed, only Russians are growing more convinced that the economic situation was better under communism.

This would be a real concern if what the Russians are experiencing was democracy, but it isn't even close. It's a combination of rigged elections, political intimidation, suppression of civil rights and economic gangsterism. In a word, it's Putinism.

Unfortunately democracy is increasingly getting a bad name among people who think they are living in a democratic state but in fact are ruled by some form or other of Putinism. The confusion is understandable in societies that have never experienced democracy but are told by their rulers that is what they have. Simon Tisdall, writing in The Guardian, observes that "instinctively undemocratic, oligarchic and corrupt national elites find that an appearance of democracy, with parliamentary trappings and a pretense of pluralism, is much more attractive, and manageable, than the real thing." Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary proudly refers to his increasing authoritarianism as "illiberal democracy." Illiberal it certainly is, democratic not so much.

Unfortunately, we frequently hear these corrupt regimes referred to as democracies even in this country, apparently for no other reason than that they have elections. This does neither the word nor the practice any favour. It creates the impression that democracy is somehow failing when in fact it is about as strong in the world as it has ever been. And it helps give a variety of unsavoury characters a status they don't deserve.

Time for Evo to Go?

Evo Morales has done great things for Bolivia. Perhaps his most important contribution has been giving Brazil's indigenous people their country back. For centuries after the conquest, as has been too often the case in Latin America, the country was dominated by its European-descended people, the heirs of the conquistadors. Indeed, in a country with an indigenous majority, he is the first indigenous president.

Morales has accomplished many of the goals he set for his presidency. The country has prospered with an annual economic growth rate of 4.6 percent, over twice that of all Latin America. He instituted social programs that helped lift over two million people out of poverty. The poverty rate has dropped from 60 percent to 36 percent. In a show of diversity familiar to Canadians, he included women, indigenous people and labor leaders in his cabinet. Working with leaders of Andean, lowland and Amazon tribes, he drafted a new constitution, approved by 60 percent of Bolivians in a 2009 referendum. He even changed the name of the country from the Republic of Bolivia to the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reflect the diverse ethnicities that had, for centuries, felt like second-class citizens. His success has been an inspiration to first nations’ movements worldwide.

He was lionized as a result, his name gracing schools, stadiums and cultural centers. He was re-elected three times and in 2019 for a controversial fourth. But recently his star has begun to fade. Tensions with indigenous people first emerged in 2011 when he proposed a road through the Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory, enraging native groups and environmentalists. Protesters marched for over a month before the project was suspended. Adolfo Chávez, former president of The Confederation of Indigenous People of Bolivia, said “When Evo took office we thought indigenous people would never have to march again.” In 2013, the government announced it would permit hydrocarbon exploration in the country's national parks, seriously affecting Morales' formerly impeccable environmental credentials.

Signs of grandiosity have emerged with the opening of a $7-million museum in his hometown telling Bolivia's recent history through his achievements and a $34-million presidential palace in La Paz. The civil service has become politicized with its members dragooned into demonstrations of support for Morales, and there is suspicion of corruption in the awarding of state contracts. A cooling economy has not helped.

But of greatest concern from a democratic perspective is his reluctance to give up power. Despite his own constitution setting a limit of two five-year terms, Morales asked voters in a referendum to let him run again in 2019. When they said no, he convinced the Constitutional Court, consisting of judges nominated by his allies in Congress, to let him run anyway. The ruling on term limits has fueled continuing demonstrations, and questions have arisen about the recent election.

Morales is accused of using state resources to promote his campaign and packing the electoral tribunal with his supporters. The election result is suspect. With over 80 percent of the votes counted, it looked like a runoff with the second candidate would be required, then the tribunal went dark for 23 hours, after which it announced Morales had won a clear victory. While Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico and Argentina have supported Morales, the EU (Bolivia's biggest funder), the U.S., Canada and a number of Latin American countries have refused to recognize the result and are demanding a runoff. An Organization of American States observer mission, backed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, will audit the election. Morales has said he will go to a second round if fraud is found. In the meantime, violent protests rage across the country.

Regardless of the outcome, Evo may have simply outstayed his welcome, as politicians all too often attempt to do. Latin America in particular has seen a host of politicians who rose to power as men of the people and did good things, but eventually were overtaken by their egos and slipped into the role of strongmen. It would be a great tragedy if Morales' historic contributions were undermined by his country descending into another Venezuela.

Eastern Europe happy (mostly) with democracy and free markets

In November, 1989, the world's most infamous wall came down and the "Evil Empire" crumbled away. The communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapsed like dominoes and by 1990 free elections were held, the free market was adopted throughout, and Germany was whole again.

And how do the citizens of these former totalitarian states feel about the transition now? The Pew Research Center has attempted to answer that question with a comprehensive survey of nine Eastern European states. The answer is general approval with some reservations.

For example, in all the countries surveyed, except Russia, more people approved than disapproved of multiparty elections and free market systems, most strongly. Most agreed that education, standard of living, and pride of country have benefited; law and order is about the same; while health care has slipped. Those in nations that joined the European Union generally believe membership has been good for their countries.

Poles, Czechs and Lithuanians, and more than four-in-ten Hungarians and Slovaks, believe their economic situation is better than it was under communism; however most Russians, Ukrainians and Bulgarians believe things are worse. People in the two nations that have not joined the EU, Russia and Ukraine, are less supportive of democracy and capitalism, and less satisfied with their lives than those in nations that are now members.

Perhaps the survey’s most positive finding is people's increase in life satisfaction. Asked if they would rate their lives 7 to 10 on a scale where 10 represents the best possible life, the citizens of all countries showed a dramatic increase over their response to the same question in 1991. In East Germany, for example, the per cent answering yes jumped from 15 per cent to 59 per cent, close to that of West Germany.

On the negative side, there is apparently a widespread perception that politicians, and to a lesser extent business people, have benefited much more than ordinary people. In addition to a certain pessimism about the functioning of the political system, there is worry about economic issues such as the future of well-paying jobs and inequality.

Nonetheless, in every country half or more agreed with the statement “Voting gives people like me some say about how the government runs things.” And young people generally hold a stronger belief that shifting to a market economy has been good for their country, are more satisfied with the current direction of their countries, have more favorable opinions of the EU, and are more optimistic about their economic future.

The shift from communism to freedom in Eastern Europe has been one of the most momentous revolutions in the history of the continent, and an almost entirely peaceful one. It is early days, barely three decades old, nonetheless it appears that in the eyes of the great majority of the people affected so far it has been a success. Score one for democracy.

A bad night for politicians, but not so bad for the country

It was not a good night for political parties. Clearly, the voters were not about to commend the Liberals for their four years in power. And just as clearly, they weren't about to replace them with the Conservatives. The only party that came out laughing was the Bloc.

Personally, I am quite content with a Liberal minority government. I am tired of being governed by political parties that only have the support of 40 per cent of us, as has become the habit lately. When 60 per cent of the citizens don't want the party in power governing them, you may have an electoral system but you don't have a democratic system. Now we can look forward to a government that more accurately represents the will of the people.

I wouldn't have minded a majority Liberal government. After all, they did a lot of good stuff: appointed a gender-balanced cabinet, legalized pot and assisted suicide, negotiated an improved NAFTA, introduced a new child benefit, reinstated the long-form census, unmuzzled government scientists, signed the Paris climate agreement and instituted a carbon tax—a long list. However, despite the latter two items, I was disappointed overall with their global warming efforts and, of particular interest to me, they betrayed their promise of voting reform. So now they are stuck with a minority government anyway—poetic justice.

Most importantly they will need the support of the NDP, my party, to pass legislation. The combined seats for the two parties total 181 (53 per cent) with 49 per cent of the popular vote, not perfect but a big improvement. Add the Greens and it's 184 seats (54 per cent) with 55 per cent of the popular vote—even better. Or they could enlist the Bloc?

Now let's hope the progressive parties behave like adults, recognize the will of the people, and work together. I will now dash off a letter to Mr. Singh with exactly that message.

War Rooms, Secrecy and a Little Patronage—Democracy in Alberta

Former journalist and conservative lobbyist Tom Olsen was the UCP candidate in my riding of Calgary-Buffalo in this spring's Alberta election. Tom lost to Joe Ceci of the NDP, but his loss was only temporary. Recently it turned into a handsome reward. He was named by Energy Minister Sonya Savage to the position of managing director of the newly-created Canadian Energy Centre, otherwise known as the "war room." Olsen will be paid $195,000 a year in his new job, a cut above the $120,931 he would have got as an MLA. For some people it's all horseshoes.

The war room will have a $30-million budget and work to counter what the government considers to be misinformation about Alberta's resource industry. One suspects it will apply a broad definition for "misinformation."

The new centre was set up as a private corporation which means much of what it does will not be subject to freedom-of-information legislation. This lack of transparency was explained by Christine Myatt, Premier Kenney's press secretary, as necessary to avoid providing "a tactical and/or strategic advantage to the very foreign-funded special interests the CEC is looking to counter. For example, we would not let those foreign-funded special interests seeking to attack our province see our detailed defence plans."

Strategic advantage? Attack our province? Defense plans? Is our new government paranoid or have the premier and his energy minister simply been playing too many war games on their PCs? In any case, this secrecy when they are spending taxpayer dollars is offensive. As Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch put it, "Exempting any government public organization from the access to information law is a recipe for waste and corruption and abuse of the public and the public interest." Amen, Duff.

And then there is a very real question about what this war room will actually be used for. After all, you don't need an annual budget of $30-million and secret strategies to counter misinformation. You only need one, very open strategy: tell the truth. What the UCP has set up sounds very like a propaganda centre, and indeed concerns have arisen that it will be used to stifle free speech and demonize those who express views critical of the industry and its contribution to global warming.

Paranoia has a history in Alberta. In 1937, Premier William "Bible Bill" Aberhart's Social Credit government introduced a bill that would have forced newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories the provincial cabinet deemed "inaccurate." The bill was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This would be a fitting future for Kenney's war room nonsense.

One Gem in the LIberal Package

With promises flying about right and left as the election approaches, one gem emerged from the Liberal package: "We will establish the Canadian Centre for Peace, Order, and Good Government, which will lend expertise and help to people seeking to build peace, advance justice, promote human rights and democracy, and deliver good governance."

With Canada's contribution to creating a more peaceful, just and democratic world order having faded to a shadow of what it was in Lester Pearson's day, it's encouraging to see a promise to re-establish a centre for peace. We have done this sort of thing before but it didn't last. The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, established in 1984, was shuttered in 1992 by the Mulroney government. The Pearson Centre, established in 1994, was abandoned by the Harper government in 2013.

In addition to our fading diplomatic influence in world affairs, our once formidable contribution to international peacekeeping with boots on the ground has also dwindled. From the late '50s through the early '90s, we were often the single largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. According to iPolitics, in 1992 we had 3,285 peacekeepers abroad. By mid 2018 we had 41. In 1995 we ranked 6th among nations contributing to missions. We now rank 78th. In 2016, the Liberals promised up to 600 troops and 150 police officers for UN peace support operations. Another promise unfulfilled.

Perhaps the new centre will help put us back in the game. According to the Rideau Institute, a non-profit dedicated to revitalizing Canada’s peace-building role in the world, the centre is "the most interesting new proposal—and one which could yield long term results in strengthening Canadian foreign policy development." And it could indeed use some strengthening.

Is Universal Suffrage Logical? Is it Moral?

Not everyone is a fan of democracy. Other than those who outright prefer dictatorship of one kind or another, some critics simply don't trust all citizens having equal power over their governors. Jason Brennan, a Georgetown University political philosopher, expresses just such a view in his book Against Democracy. Brennan believes that because most people are ignorant of the issues allowing them to impose their will on everyone is immoral. He particularly takes issue with universal suffrage, i.e. one citizen /one vote. As alternatives, he offers various methods of rule by the knowledgeable, which he calls epistocracy.

The idea that only the well-informed should guide society has always been around, dating back at least to Plato. Brennan's book is, nonetheless, well-timed. The two most prominent modern democracies, Britain and the United States, are both currently being run by buffoons. Of course neither buffoon was elected by the people—Trump by the electoral college and Johnson by the Conservative Party—so we can't really blame all the ignorant voters, just some. Nonetheless, both countries are becoming travesties of democracy largely because of voters who were angry but ill-informed, a dangerous combination.

Still, I remain loyal to one citizen/one vote. Although there are those who couldn't care less about voting, I think to most people it has great symbolic value. It says they are as valued as citizens as anyone else. This I think is important, even though Brennan  is quite right that most people have a poor grasp of most issues.

But this is a personal conceit. It's just me. Is there some fundamental reason why people would cleave to democracy? Why the vote has symbolic appeal?

The emotional reason must arise somehow from what we, a social species, evolved to be, our natural morality so to speak. Evolutionary biologists talk about reciprocal altruism, “a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.” In other words, I do you a favour when you need one, you do me a favour when I need one, and if we don't cheat we are both better off. (Cheating is the other half of the story, and an interesting half it is.) From reciprocal altruism perhaps comes our sense of fair play and from fair play, democracy, bequeathed you might say by evolution. ... Perhaps.

The logical reason may simply be recognizing that democracy is essential to a free society. There is no absolute freedom. As long as we live in groups we must have rules. The question of freedom in a society of rules becomes a question of who makes the rules. If one man makes them, or a group of men make them, then we are servants of that man or those men. We are not free. The only way we can be free is to make the rules ourselves. And it follows that we must all have an equal say, i.e. democracy, in making them. If one person has less of a say then that person is that much a servant of the rest of us, that much less free. To accept epistocracy is to accept a diminution of freedom. And that I’m very leery indeed of doing.

As for those who are willing to give up their freedom, well .... they choose to be servants and that's a whole other thing. They will have their own justification both emotionally and logically. Ultimately each person's choice will depend on their personal genetic and cultural history and mine tilts me toward freedom and democracy.

Even if we were to choose those citizens we thought qualified to vote, would knowledge be the best criteria? An important one, yes, but how about judgment, honesty, tolerance, compassion or even simple common decency? You can always gain the knowledge you need, but can you gain compassion?

In any case, people don't vote on issues (except in a referendum); they vote to elect representatives to vote on issues. And they don't vote in isolation. They are greatly aided by political parties who present platforms outlining their positions on issues. This is in fact one of political parties most important functions. Almost everyone I know votes by party, not by candidate, and even people who don't pay a lot of attention to issues have a general idea about what the parties represent.

And once representatives are elected, they are well paid and provided with ample resources to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the issues. They have the entire civil service to draw on, and the civil service contains experts in all the areas they will have to deal with. Indeed, some might argue that a good civil service is more important to a healthy democracy than the elected representatives.

And once legislation is drawn up, it must pass scrutiny in the cabinet, the brightest and best of the representatives (one hopes), then survive three readings in the House of Commons and finally face review in the Senate, before receiving assent. It isn't as if policy was concocted by the ignorant masses on a whim and imposed willy-nilly.

Certainly democracy as it is practiced can use a lot of improvement. But overall it has done better than any other form of government, so it would seem sensible to improve it before leaping into some form of epistocracy. Interestingly, one form Brennan discusses, the "enfranchisement lottery," which involves choosing a random set of voters by lot and immersing them in a competence-building program, sounds very similar to citizens' assemblies, a form of decision-making I consider quite democratic and think should be used a great deal more. I have discussed citizens' assemblies elsewhere.

As long as lots of room for improvement is available, allowing everyone the equal right to simply pick a candidate they think mostly shares their values, or favours their interests, and letting those selected candidates deal with the issues—with experts at their elbows—would seem to be the sensible choice. Democracy has proven to the best of all the many systems we've tried so jumping to something new before we have given it every chance would be a risky venture.

My Reluctant Strategic Vote

Here's an irony. I'm forced to vote Liberal (again) because Justin Trudeau betrayed me. No, it doesn't make any sense and, furthermore, it pisses me off. But that's just the way it is.

In his 2015 campaign, Justin promised that that election would be the last under the grievously undemocratic first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. He reiterated his promise in the throne speech. He then established a committee to study the issue and they did, thoroughly, spending hours of their time and effort, and that of others, on the project, and concluded by recommending a referendum that would propose a "proportional electoral system." Trudeau then flushed the recommendation down the toilet, in effect dismissing the entire exercise, including his promise.

I suspect he intended a form of ranked voting system to win the day because it would favour the Liberals, but when he lost control of the process he lost interest in the whole idea. Under a proportional system he wouldn't have gained 100 per cent of the power with the support of only 40 per cent of the people, and politicians really, really don't want to give that up.

So why am I voting Liberal? This week the Liberal candidate in my riding, Kent Hehr, knocked at my door and I explained it to him. I chastised his leader for betraying us on what is a very important issue, but assured him that he would still have my vote, even though I'm a member of another party. Two reasons. One, because he has represented me as both an MLA and an MP and I think he has done a good job. And two, most importantly, because he is the only candidate who can beat the Conservative. He assured me that he too felt betrayed on voting reform and would take my opinion back to Ottawa.

Under a democratic voting system I could vote for the candidate that most closely represents my views but under FPTP, in my riding it's either Liberal or Conservative. My preferred parties simply don't get enough share of the popular vote to win the constituency. A vote for one of them is a wasted vote. It does nothing but help the Conservative. So, once again, I' m back to second-rate democracy and strategic voting. Thanks, Justin.

Inhabiting the Radical Middle

While I take an active interest in politics, and have always been a member of a political party (sometimes two), I no longer get directly involved in election campaigns. My reason is one that many people share—politics just seems to bring out the worst in people. Enter the world of political activity and you enter a world of self-righteousness. Your guys are always right and the other guys always wrong. You see this on peacock display on the election campaign trail and in question period in the House of Commons.

I confess to suffering from no little political self-righteousness myself. I am guilty of confirmation bias, i.e. selecting those facts that support my view and ignoring those that contradict it. I am inclined to put winning a political argument over sincerely trying to understand what the other guy is saying. And, yes, I mansplain. (Hey, I'm a blogger!)

I was delighted therefor to discover a set of self-correctives that I can use to keep my attitude in better balance. Aids to critical thinking, one might say. The set appear in a Linked In article entitled "Top Ten List on How to Inhabit the Radical Middle"  by Maggie Hanna, geologist and "consulting innovator." In case anyone may find Maggie's list as useful a tonic for bias as I do, I'm including it in full below. I intend to refresh my mind with it from time to time when I find my tolerance slipping. I tripped over a few bits, such as the Dalai Lama's comment on truth, but for the most part ... well, read on.

Maggie defines the radical middle as seeking to find common ground rather than trying to convert the opposition. She explains, "Occupying that space opens up the possibility for people in a divided debate to not only sincerely speak with each other, but also to form partnerships. What if those partnerships could form, not in spite of each person’s passionately held convictions, but because of them."

1. Temporarily loosen one’s grip on one’s own point of view. When we recognize that our own point of view has evolved over time, then we recognize that it can never be absolute. How is your perspective different from when you were 16 years old? Pretty different I bet. What will your perspective be in 10 years’ time? Not sure yet, but it will be different. We can always come back to our basecamp after ranging out, and return to the specialness of our own hard-won moral compass.

2. Ask oneself a BETTER question. The quality of our questions determines the quality of our lives. Our brains are hardwired to immediately go to work on whatever question we pose to it. If you ask yourself a disempowering question like, “Why is this person such a dip-turd? Or caustically annoying, or dumb as a bag of hammers?” … your mind will tell you why, but it will not advance your understanding of that person, their position, nor yourself. Instead we might ask a better question like, “Is there something, a word, an image, or a metaphor, in what this person is saying that is meant for me?” or “How could the opposite of what I think actually be true?” Those are questions worth turning one’s mind towards.

3. Occupy both your head and your heart at the same time. Wisdom is the marriage of knowledge and emotion; the head and the heart. Knowledge can be defined as our ability to organize categories in one’s mind. It is significant, but it is not wisdom. Real wisdom requires both mind and emotion. If one runs only on emotion without clarity, it is not wisdom. If one only has perception without heartfulness, it is not wisdom. It is the heart that provides those flashes of lucidity, recognition of resonance, and the acuteness of knowing that is undeniable. It is when we overcome the artificial barriers that separate the mind and heart that we can be in both places at once, 100% in our mind and 100% attuned to the information being shared with us from the heart. It is not an “either/or” proposition. It is a “both/and” way of being.

4. Be here now. The present is the only moment there is. Instead of obsessing about the past which has already happened, or worrying about the future which isn’t here yet; have a real interaction… now. We have to be to very much here to hear what otherwise would be missed.

5. Use one’s intuition to sense behind what a person is saying. Everyone has intuition. Intuition is the norm and the natural. It is not something that happens to us… it is us. When someone speaks against our firmly held belief or position, our tendency is to react, attack, defend and convince that person otherwise. What if, instead, we got quiet for a moment, checked in with our intuition, and asked a clarifying question? What common need or concern underlies their position? Why is this point so important to this person?

6. Seek to find the commonalities between their position and your position. This requires a flexibility of mind. Even world religions are over 80% the same stuff as each other. Why focus on the 20% that is different? Rather focus on the similarities and not the differences. Find something you can genuinely agree on. For example, one might use the phrase, “I know exactly what you mean”. It affirms the other’s position and does not dilute one’s own. Such a phrase makes safe space for the other person to open up more, and unpack the deeper reasons and experiences that have formed their position, which enriches the conversation.

7. Leave some space to consider and reflect on what the other person has said. This is hard to do when part of us is feeling challenged, feisty, and uncomfortable. It is a practice. Leave a moment of space, instead of crafting one’s response while the other is still speaking, which means we are only listening with half an ear. Receiving another’s point of view doesn’t mean we must abandon our own.

8. See the wrong in the right, and the right in the wrong. We often divide the world into two parts, the part we like, and the part we don’t. There are many other sides to every story besides our own. In what way are the other person’s assertions right? In what ways are my assertions wrong? It is liberating to not identify with what you seem to be. What if we suspended our point of view for even a day and embraced the opposite view for a day to see what it is like to walk a mile in that person’s shoes? This requires a flexibility of mind, a level of respect, and a recognition that we are all human beings with a beating heart, born of a mother, and destined to die. We all need food, water, medicine. We all appreciate conviviality and shared interests, and we have each suffered ordeals that we cannot know in another. What if, as an infant, you were switched at the hospital into this person’s family and raised that way? You could be talking to yourself! The Sufi teacher Pir Vilayat was fond of saying: “To become what I might be, I have to see myself in another myself, who shows me who I truly am.”

9. Embrace Discernment over Judgement. Discernment is the evolving ability to recognize ever more nuanced distinctions between two things that are very close to each other. Whereas Judgement is about making someone’s position “good, right and true” or “bad, wrong and evil” depending on how it relates to one's own position. A rule from the Knighthood of Purity (…google it... it’s profound and cool) states, “My conscientious self, judge not another by your own law.” No one likes to feel judged. It shuts down the conversation really fast. It is also unhelpful to use one’s position like a big stick to beat someone up who disagrees … tempting sometimes…but never ultimately useful. The Dalai Lama said, “The truth is always kind. If it is not kind, it is not the truth. It is cruelty”.

10. Make it personal in a good way. When a person acts in a certain way that we don’t like, it is not personal unless we choose to make it personal. There are two ways to make it personal; an unavailing way or a profitable way. The first way is to react poorly as if attacked… we argue defend, attack back, become agitated, blow a gasket…. not useful. The second way is to really hear a person’s stories because there is abundant information in them which is ours to witness. We are being shown something. That person could become our “Angel in Jackboots” teaching us a hard lesson about ourselves and/or about human nature that we can be grateful for, if we allow the lesson. In the Hindu tradition, there are stories about Krishna stealing butter as a metaphor for gleaning wisdom from everyone’s stories. The way of wisdom is to learn from everyone else, and I do mean EVERYONE, as grist for the mill of our own evolution.

I Vote CBC

Well informed citizens are essential to a healthy democracy. In ancient Athens, usually considered the first democracy, citizens who wanted to hear the latest news and views went down to the public square or Agora. The Agora, also known as the Forum of Athens, was the place for doing business and discussing the state's commerce, culture and politics, a marketplace of both goods and ideas.

Modern democracies are rather too large to accommodate all their citizens in one place so we depend on mass media to do the job. Unlike the Athenian Agora, however, the media are not publicly owned. On the contrary, they are the property of owners who have their own agendas, and who reflect those agendas in their newspapers and TV networks.

Hopes were high that the Internet would sever our need for the traditional media however, except for the websites of those same media, it is a marketplace corrupted by anonymity and lack of responsible gatekeepers. (The Athenian Agora lacked gatekeepers but was saved by an equal lack of anonymity: people had to defend their views face to face.) The Internet has developed a reputation as much for fake news as real news and as much for irrational opinion as rational. It has also seriously undermined daily newspapers by effectively stealing their advertising. Ironically, the Internet has deepened the need for a responsible public medium.

On the national level that role is filled by public broadcasters, in our case the CBC, owned by and responsible to all of us. Most democratic countries recognize the need for a public broadcaster and most seem to recognize the need much more than we Canadians do, at least as indicated by their financial support. Norway's public broadcaster gets $162 per person per year, the BBC $100, compared to the measly $34 we provide the CBC. We are third lowest among 18 industrial countries, ahead of only New Zealand ($21) and the U.S. ($3).

Facebook may be Canada's number one news source (shiver) but corporate press giants such as the Thomson family, owner of the Globe and Mail, and Postmedia with its dozens of dailies, complemented by multimedia corporations Corus (Global TV) and Bell (CTV) still set the news agenda. Our only serious choice as an alternative is the CBC.

In preparation for the rapidly approaching election, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting are revving up their #CBCFightFor50 campaign, calling for increasing CBC funding to $50 per person per year. As part of the campaign, they are attempting to send a 50,000-signature petition to all federal leaders. You can sign the petition here.

Too Big to Fail—A Sound Idea?

So the Ethics Commissioner has slapped the Prime Minister's wrist, stating in his report

I found that Mr. Trudeau used his position of authority over Ms. Wilson‑Raybould to seek to influence, both directly and indirectly, her decision on whether she should overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement. Therefore, I find that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 9 of the Act.

As the commissioner says, Trudeau overstepped his bounds in attempting to have SNC-Lavalin dealt with via a remediation agreement rather than criminal prosecution. So much for cabinet politics, but what about that remediation agreement he mentioned, sometimes called a deferred prosecution agreement or, more cynically, a too-big-to-fail agreement. The idea is that instead of charging an errant corporation in the criminal courts, it pays a fine, cleans house appropriately and promises to behave itself in the future. The government then monitors its behaviour and may still level criminal charges if the corporation doesn't fulfill its obligations.

The reason for this plea bargain arrangement is to avoid public harm that may result if the corporation is subject to criminal punishment. In the case of SNC-Lavalin, accused of corruption and fraud in its operations in Libya, a criminal conviction would have made it ineligible for government contracts for 10 years, work vital to its business. This could have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs. These workers, who had nothing to do with the alleged crimes,would be inadvertently punished for the crimes of those who were guilty. This is simply unjust.

In 2018, the government introduced a budget bill that included a change to the Criminal Code allowing remediation agreements. This would solve the problem of punishing innocent parties. On the other hand, another problem now arises. Under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act the company employees guilty of the corruption can be sent to prison. Under a remediation agreement their punishment is left up to the company, which may be required to fine or discipline them. Whatever the penalties administered, they will almost certainly be a great deal less onerous than going to jail. For the guilty individuals, the agreement is a get out of jail card. This, too, is unjust.

It appears one injustice is simply replaced with another. The answer is to hold the guilty parties, and only the guilty parties, responsible. Those employees who engage in corruption should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. The corporation need not be penalized at all. After all, people commit crimes, not companies.

This may also be more effective in discouraging illegal behaviour. Companies may consider fines simply the cost of doing business, but the possibility of high officials going to jail would give those officials much more incentive to behave themselves.

Indeed, treating companies as people is a questionable concept in any case. In the United States, a decision by the Supreme Court that essentially gave corporations the same free speech rights as citizens has resulted in corruption of the American political process by big money. Better to confine rights and responsibilities to citizens, leaving corporations to be treated as the things they are.

Please, No Excuses for Maduro

In the early days after the Russian revolution, leftists would visit the country in order to view this experiment in collectivist society. They would be welcomed, given the grand tour of appropriate Potemkin displays, be suitably impressed, and return exclaiming they had seen the future. They had seen a future all right, but it was a grim one, led by one of history's great monsters, not quite the utopia they had imagined.

Similarly, some on the left today seem to see the Maduro regime in Venezuela through Potemkin eyes. Maduro is no Stalin but he and his predecessor have nonetheless led his nation into a state of collapse.

Venezuela was run for decades by centrist parties that increasingly lost touch with voters and, despite the country's vast oil wealth, failed to create an equitable society. In 1992 an army lieutenant colonel, Hugo Chavez, attempted a military coup. It failed and Chavez went to jail but many Venezuelans saw him as a charismatic alternative to the ruling classes. Pardoned after two years, he returned to politics and won the presidency in 1998.

Initially, he showed promise as a democratic reformer, instituting neighbourhood councils and expanding access to basic necessities for the poor. Improving the lives of the poor was, however, only one of his ambitions. Exploiting the country's oil wealth, he sought to develop regional alliances, including with Cuba, to create a political and economic counter to the U.S. On his TV show he entertained for hours, boasting about his revolution, ranting against the business elites and the Americans, and announcing decrees. (He would have loved Twitter.) He also embarked on a binge of nationalization, seizing private businesses, factories and large commercial farms.

His reforms initially showed great promise. He directed a much higher percentage of oil revenue to housing, education, and health care for the poor and cut the poverty rate in half.

He exploited his resulting popularity to win every election for 15 years. When he died in 2013 his vice president, Nicholas Maduro, won the ensuing election to replace him as president. Things had already turned sour. The rot that had set in well before Chavez came to power—cronyism, corruption, excessive dependence on oil—had grown worse. When the oil price began to wobble in 2008, the army was put in charge of food distribution and chaos resulted: supermarkets emptied, people went hungry, and food ended up on the black market. Today, food supply is a military fiefdom. Management of the nationalized enterprises was incompetent, businesses failed, and abandoned farms and factories now litter the countryside. Price controls introduced by Chavez to make basic goods more affordable to the poor resulted in the local businesses producing them unable to make them profitably and merchants couldn't afford to import them.

Nor have Chavez's reforms lasted. Temporary improvements in poverty, literacy and income equality are now reversing. Crime has soared, starting at the top. Maduro and his generals are thought to be involved in the drug trade while the streets are plagued by gangs armed by the government and deputized as "defenders of the revolution."

Democracy has suffered along with the economy. When the opposition won a solid majority of congress in 2015, Maduro responded by refusing to recognize any of its decisions and then in effect created his own legislature. He held an election for a Constituent Assembly, which the opposition boycotted on constitutional grounds, that is officially tasked with rewriting the constitution but in practice functions as a parallel legislature with no checks on its power. During the 2018 presidential election, many candidates were barred from running and others were jailed or fled the country. As for media freedom, Reporters Without Borders ranks Venezuela 148th out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index and states "Maduro persists in trying to silence independent media outlets and keep news coverage under constant control." Venezuelans are now voting with their feet. An estimated four million have fled the country.

The initial optimism one might have had about Chavez creating a more compassionate, equitable society was soon challenged by his follies. His boasting about his accomplishments and ranting about his enemies. His attempt to establish a regional bloc like some latter-day Simon Bolivar. His Marxist flirtations despite the miserable failure of the Soviet example. His provocation of the United States, the world's most powerful nation. All of these were symptomatic of a strongman answering to his ego, not a democratic leader answering to the best interests of his people. Maduro was his logical heir. And now, as always, the people are paying a terrible price.

Trump is no Substitute for Unions

The major reason Donald Trump was elected to the job he is manifestly unfit for was his appeal to electors in the Rust Belt states. These states had seen a collapse of manufacturing jobs, i.e. union jobs, and millions of people were thrown from the middle class into the precariat. Instead of well-paid, reliable jobs with good benefits, they were delivered low-paid, unreliable jobs with poor benefits. Furthermore, they saw nothing better for their kids. Not surprisingly, they were filled with anger and despair, and in their desperation turned to Trump the saviour.

The U.S. has in fact become an anti-union nation. Just how anti-union is spelled out in a recent article in the New York Times entitled "Yes, America Is Rigged Against Workers" in which the author accuses his country of “anti-worker exceptionalism.” He points out that "the United States is the only advanced industrial nation that doesn’t have national laws guaranteeing paid maternity leave ... the only advanced economy that doesn’t guarantee workers any vacation ... and the only highly developed country (other than South Korea) that doesn’t guarantee paid sick days," and among the nations of the OECD, it "has the lowest minimum wage as a percentage of the median wage."

He suggests the overriding reason is the weakness of America's labour unions. Only 10.5 percent of American workers are unionized. In Germany, 18 per cent of workers are union members, in the U.K. 25 per cent and in Sweden 67 per cent. In Canada, 27 per cent.

The Times article emphasizes that union decline not only has enormous consequences for wages and benefits but also for politics and policymaking. He points out that while unions spend about $48-million a year lobbying in Washington, corporations spend $3-billion.

There is a lesson here for Canadians. If we want to allow workers the middle class luxury of voting after careful deliberation rather than with desperation, we must maintain a strong union sector to ensure they have a voice and to help maintain their confidence in the system. Unfortunately, union membership is currently declining in this country as it is in the U.S. This is, therefor, a good time to enhance the power of the union movement. We should be making it easier to form unions, particularly in the service sector, and mandating union representatives on corporate boards and worker councils in the workplace.

The alternative may be the election of a Donald Trump. And that, as we are seeing with our southern neighbour, is a disaster for democracy.

Religious Tolerance on the Decline

Quebec's Bill 21 which bans public teachers, police officers, government lawyers and other authority figures from wearing religious symbols at work has met vigorous criticism. Its critics claim it violates religious freedom and discriminates against specific religions. Given that it seems aimed particularly at Muslim women who wear the hijab, it may indeed be discriminatory. Predictably, the law is now before the courts.

Quebec becomes the first place in North America to institute such a ban. If it is indeed anti-religious, or at least anti one religion, it is part of a worldwide trend. A recent report by the Pew Research Center claims that, "Over the decade from 2007 to 2017, government restrictions on religion—laws, policies and actions by state officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices—increased markedly around the world." I am no lover of religion, and wouldn't waste a moment defending it, but as a democrat the erosion of a basic freedom is of concern to me. Freedom of religion is commonly a fundamental right in democratic constitutions, as it is in ours, an obstacle Quebec is attempting to avoid by invoking the Charter's notwithstanding clause.

According to the Pew report, 52 governments now impose high or very high levels of restrictions on religion, up from 40 in 2007. The most prevalent types of restrictions include laws and policies restricting religious freedom and government favoritism of religious groups through funding for religious education, property and clergy. Social hostility involving religion, including harassment by private individuals and groups, has also risen.

The level of restrictions is highest in the Middle East-North Africa region, although some of the biggest increases have been in other regions, including Europe, where more governments have been placing limits on Muslim women’s dress, and sub-Saharan Africa, where some groups have tried to impose their religious norms on others through kidnappings and forced conversions. Social hostilities have also been consistently high in the Middle East-North Africa region.

The top twenty countries that show favoritism to a religion are all Muslim except for Great Britain, Greece and Iceland which have state religions, the latter two government funded. Many countries require some form of registration for religious groups to operate. For example, in China only certain religious groups are allowed to register with the government and hold worship services, and in Saudi Arabia public practice of all non-Muslim religions is illegal. China has infamously sent hundreds of thousands of Uighur Muslims to “reeducation camps” while Myanmar has committed widespread abuses against the Muslim Rohingya.

Considering the kinds and degree of violence religious groups around the world suffer from, Quebec's law looks pretty tame. Nonetheless, it is a step in the wrong direction as its invoking of the Charter's notwithstanding clause testifies to. May its opponents have success in the courts.

Democracy Needs Gatekeepers

When the Internet arrived and then computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee unleashed the world wide web, a paradise of communication loomed. Now everyone could have access to all the world's knowledge. We would all know everything we wanted or needed to know to make us ideal citizens. We would make wise decisions and choose the best of leaders. And of course we could say anything we wanted, when we wanted, and broadcast it around the world. What freedom! The idea of having a public statement you wanted to make screened by editors at a newspaper or magazine seemed undemocratic and antiquated.

How naive we were. Yes, the Internet would make the truth available to all, but it has also made lies available to all, and unfortunately people often prefer the latter to the former. As for becoming wiser in our choice of leaders, that has obviously not happened.

The Internet is in fact a paradise for liars. They can tell any lie they choose, they can broadcast it to the ends of the Earth, and they can do it anonymously. They don't have to stand accountable for their mendacity. And they exploit their opportunity to the hilt, undermining democracy and promoting hate. And lies are not the only sin: anonymity has reduced much online dialogue to the level of the sewer. (American author Mike Godwin enunciated a law saying that as a thread of posts grew longer, inevitably someone would call someone else a Nazi.) And online anonymity also leads to innocent people becoming the victims of bullying and abuse.

Furthermore, personal privacy has been egregiously violated, and dot.com companies parasitically rob mainstream media of advertising revenue, driving them into bankruptcy.

Democracy needs gatekeepers. The editors of newspapers and magazines had their faults but they attempted at least to ensure that public comments were literate, factual, reasonably logical and respectful. They were, in my experience, also fair. When I subscribed to The Globe and Mail, I had many letters published even though I often disagreed with the paper's editorial policy.

Understandably, although a sizable majority of online adults continue to believe the internet has been a good thing for society, the number saying this is declining. Fortunately, this has drawn attention. As a result of various scandals, some social media services are now screening posts to their sites. A number of countries are considering data protection legislation and regulation. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a good example, establishing a set of data protection rules for all companies operating in the EU, regardless of where they are based.

In the U.S., presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for anti-trust action against the big dot.coms, a call echoed by the justice department and the Federal Trade Commission. The latter voted to fine Facebook approximately $5-billion for mishandling personal information.

The World Wide Web Foundation has made a number of recommendations to counter the toxic uses of the Internet, including equipping every user with the right and ability to control their personal data, enacting comprehensive data protection laws, and enacting policies and enforcing regulations that protect the right to safety alongside the right to freedom of speech. The latter would require "public discussions regarding the boundaries between free speech and abusive speech; retraining judges, lawyers and police to make use of existing legal instruments to effectively protect people ... from online abuse; ... and ensuring online service providers offer easy-to-use mechanisms to report abuse."

The foundation's recommendations are a tall order but necessary if the Web is to be truly a public good. Its proposed principles are contained in a report entitled The Case #ForTheWeb, a recommended read for those who would like a healthy future for the Web. The World Wide Web Foundation (founded, incidentally, by Tim Berners-Lee) can be found here.

A Platform for Tax Fairness

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." This quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is the motto of Canadians for Tax Fairness, an organization that "advocates for fair and progressive tax policies aimed at building a strong and sustainable economy, reducing inequalities and funding quality public services."

The group has released a set of recommendations entitled Platform for Tax Fairness to help parties include tax fairness measures in their election platforms. The document is well worth a read. I found a number of the recommendations particularly appealing. For instance,

• Eliminating the corporate stock option tax deduction. Among other things, the deduction encourages executives to use corporate funds to engage in stock buybacks. This is precisely what happened in the U.S. with the Trump tax cuts.

• Eliminating the lower tax rate on capital gains. This is one of the country's major loopholes, and clearly unfair to working people who have to pay taxes on their full incomes.

• Restoring the corporate tax rate to that of a decade ago. It has been cut in half in the last two decades.

• Applying the GST and HST to imports of digital services from foreign internet giants, taxing them for the business they do in Canada, and eliminating the business deductions for advertising expenses on foreign internet platforms.

• Reforming the international tax system by applying “formulary apportionment” i.e. allocating the taxable income of corporations between countries using a formula based on real economic factors, primarily sales and employment payroll expenses. This is a system that has worked well in this country for apportioning taxes between provinces.

• Publishing how much taxes large corporation actually pay in taxes.

This is a small sampling of the proposed platform. Tax Fairness claims that the recommendations would generate over $40-billion annually in additional revenues for the federal government. As the graph at the upper right indicates, federal revenues have shrunk from an average of almost 17 per cent of GDP to less than 15 per cent in this century. That two per cent drop represents $50-billion, enough to fund affordable child care for all, a national universal pharmacare plan, affordable housing and a variety of environmental measures.

Canadians for Tax Fairness can be found here, where you'll find the proposed platform and an opportunity to subscribe to their excellent newsletter.

Well-being as National Security

When the term "national security" crops up, our thoughts usually turn to things military. Indeed the dictionary on my Mac defines national security as "the safety of a nation against threats such as terrorism, war, or espionage." But the security of a people is often threatened by things other than men with guns. Wikipedia offers the U.S. legal definition, "the security of a nation state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government," pointing out that the term is now widely understood to include economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, etc.

Consistent with this broader definition, New Zealand recently passed a "well-being" budget. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declared that the purpose of government spending is to ensure citizens’ health and life satisfaction, and that, not wealth or economic growth, is how a country’s progress should be measured. She recognizes that GDP, often the sole measure of a country's progress, is inadequate in measuring people's well-being. The budget requires all new spending to go toward five specific goals: bolstering mental health, reducing child poverty, supporting indigenous peoples, moving to a low-carbon-emission economy, and flourishing in a digital age. Sixty-one indicators will track criteria from loneliness to trust in government.

If the prime responsibility of government is the security of its people, it simply makes sense to consider security comprehensively. Furthermore, at a time when we have never been richer yet our economic rapacity is exhausting our planet's resources while overwhelming it with pollution, it is time to judge progress by other yardsticks than GDP and security by other means than military preparedness.

The president of the United States surrounds himself with weaponry while surrendering to global warming, the greatest threat to the security of his people. Prime Minister Ardern, on the other hand, promotes a healthy people and a healthy environment. Ardern and her budget are much closer to the security needs of a modern society.

Is Democracy Unnatural?

Today is an exceptional time for democracy—the first time in history that most nations in the world may be called democratic (assuming we are generous with our definition).

Democracy has, throughout history, been an occasional thing. Governments have in all times and places tended to autocracy. This isn't surprising. Males of many species, including our own, tend to be competitive, principally about females. To the dominant male goes the feminine spoils. We should expect therefor to be ruled by dominant males. It is, you might say, the natural order of things.

This masculine urge derives from the purpose of life—the replication of genes. And the male who is most successful at acquiring women ensures the most replication. Genghis Khan, for instance, a supreme competitor, is thought to have had 3,000 women in his harem, produced hundreds of children, and has as many as 16 million male descendants living today.

Competition between men isn't simply a matter of brute force as it is with many other animals, but rather a matter of accumulating resources. The more resources a man has, the more status he has and the more attractive he is to women.

Women pursue a different strategy, according to the old saying: men compete, women choose. Women seek not only a man with good genes but a man who can ensure the survival of her progeny. And that means a man with resources, or at least the ability to accumulate lots of resources, and the more the resources the more appealing the man. If women are sex objects to men, men are success objects to women.

We see this illustrated by the groupies that surround rock stars, actors or athletes. Men do not group around successful women. And we are all familiar with the CEO who couldn't get a date when he was in the mail room, but when he becomes head of the company, he divorces his faithful wife of many years and marries the beautiful young secretary. And even today in a culture of monogamy, successful men often have mistresses. Not that men necessarily recognize what drives their ambition. Ask that CEO what motivates him and he may say he just likes a challenge, or he enjoys the perks, or he wanted to do well by his family ... and he is sincere. But the real reason is more fundamental, lurking in his genes.

Other, less capable men gather around the successful man to obtain a share of the spoils. And often both the submission and the loyalty they offer their leader is profound, at times bordering on the zealous. Often even men, and women, at a distance from such a leader, can be swept up in the adoration. Power is in itself a resource, one that can be erotic and mesmerizing.

This explains in large part why democracy has been so rare. How can it compete with men driven by the most powerful of our basic instincts? How can it compete with the euphoria offered by a demagogue? Or by the instant gratification he offers, compared to the responsibility demanded by democracy? The calm, rational and equal discourse of democracy is dull by comparison.

So is democracy unnatural compared to the instinctive appeal of autocracy? Not unnatural, but without the same "natural" appeal certainly. Thus history is mainly about excessively aggressive men—alpha males—seeking to maximize their resources. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote, “If there were a people of gods, it would govern itself democratically. So perfect a form of government is not for men.”

And yet it is for men, and women, and today more than ever. Why it has flowered at this time in history is a fascinating question. Certainly it has many advantages, as I have laid out on this blog's Why Democracy? page. Perhaps its increasing success is simply a result of improved communication. Newspapers began circulating in the 17th century. Cheap mail, the telegraph and the telephone appeared in the 19th century followed by the explosion of electronic technologies in the 20th. Easier travel has added to the flow of ideas by shuffling people around the world. And the growth of mass communication has been complemented by the growth of mass education. While only 12 per cent of the world's people were literate in 1820, today only 17 per cent remain illiterate. It has become increasingly difficult to keep people in the dark about their oppression when they can glimpse others enjoying the perks of democracy, both material and political, including the ability to rid themselves of oppressive rulers.

Nonetheless, threats are forever present, even in long-established democracies, as we currently see with the rise of the populist Donald Trump. The seductive nature of power is natural and as permanent as the human genome. The words of American abolitionist Wendell Phillips remain in order: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few."