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.
Saturday, 24 August 2019
Sunday, 18 August 2019
Too Big to Fail—A Sound Idea?
So the Ethics Commissioner has slapped the Prime Minister's wrist, stating in his report
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.
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.
Thursday, 15 August 2019
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.
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.
Tuesday, 6 August 2019
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)