The Wire

Ipsos-Reid: Political Turmoil Scaring Canadians

2008-12-04T15:55:00.000-08:00

What I have been trying to get across since this whole debacle broke out has just been confirmed by a new poll by Ipsos-Reid. To quote the Canwest News Service, "Almost three-quarters of Canadians say they are "truly scared" for the future of the country." That is a LOT of people. To put it into perspective, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev employed many undemocratic means to win the presidential election and took home 71.25% (for more information on these undemocratic means, see this short assesment). The same amount or more Canadians are afraid for the future of our country.

As well, though no numbers are quoted, the article indicates that "a solid majority say they would prefer another election to having the minority Conservative government replaced by a coalition led by Stephane Dion." So much for having a so called "democratic mandate" for the coalition govern.

The article continues, polling to see how many people support the Conservatives. "The poll also indicates Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives would romp to a majority victory with a record 46 per cent public support if an election were held today." To put this into perspective, in 2000 the Liberals garnered 40.85% of the vote, to which Jean Chretien won 172 seats. In 1997, Chretien won 38.46% and held onto a majority by 155 seats. The last time over 45% of the popular vote has gone to a party was in 1984, Mulroney and the Conservatives won 211/282 seats in the house of commons with 50.03% of the popular vote.

As if to rub salt into the coalitions wounds, Canwest also reports that when "Pollster Ipsos Reid asked Canadians who would "best be able to manage Canada's economy during these troubling times" and three of five - or 59 per cent - named Harper over a coalition headed by Liberal Leader Stephane Dion." The Coalition government's entire mandate was that of the economy, yet a solid majority of Canadians do not believe that they would handle the economy better than Harper's Conservative government. CTV is reporting that there are cracks already forming in the coalition, and many do not believe it will survive the New Year. Here's hoping...

EDIT: I almost forgot to mention, a special thanks to Bourque for the numbers. They are also reporting the Ekos is CPC 44%, LPC 24%, NDP 15%, BQ 9%, GPC 8%...

Edward Schreyer Urges No Prorogation

2008-12-04T12:19:00.000-08:00

According to the Globe and Mail, Edward Schreyer was urging the Governor General to deny the Prime Minister's request to prorogue the Parliament. My first question was, just who is Edward Schreyer? The article states that he was a former Governor General, appointed by Pierre Trudeau, served as NDP premier of Manitoba, and campaigned for the NDP in Manitoba during the 1999 election. A quick search of Wikipedia reveals the following:

Edward Richard Schreyer PC CC CMM OM CD (born December 21, 1935) is a Canadian politician and member of the New Democratic Party of Canada.

He has served as Premier of Manitoba (1969–1977) and Governor General of Canada (1979–1984) and ran for election to the House of Commons in the 2006 federal election, the first former Governor General in Canadian history to do so. His attempt to unseat a Conservative incumbent failed, however.

The article does state that he has a clear bias, but "he said he was speaking from the point of view of his experience at Rideau Hall." It goes on to mention the several Prime Ministers who could have evoked the same measures as Harper and lists Joe Clark of 1979 as a possibility. Well, if he is so certain that the Governor General of today should not have allowed Prorogation, he must have had a firm stance against such a thing in 1979, right? "Joe Clark could have tried it in 1979, though Mr. Schreyer said he's not sure he would have granted it." Huh. He had such a strong opinion for the current Governor General, but he wasn't sure what he would have done in the same scenario.

I'm sure the deafeat of 2006 was still fresh in his mind while he was attempting to pursuade the Govenor General on these matters and to make matters worse, putting himself in the same position, he "was not sure" what he would have done. All things put together, this does not make for a very strong foundation for pursuading the Governor General.

Globe and Mail = Toronto Star?!?!

2008-12-03T15:02:00.000-08:00

The lead headline over at the Globe and Mail currently reads: Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance. They are attempting to claim that the Conservatives have indeed entered into an "unholy alliance" in the past with the BQ, in an apparent attempt to undermine the Conservatives position on the current coalition. I understand that it is impossible to write without bias, but this is such a blatant attempt to find any sort of link between the Conservatives and the Bloc, that they didn't care how FLIMSY of an argument it actually is.

Probably the most important piece of the article can be found in a small paragraph stating: "In an interview, Mr. Chipeur played down the importance of the offer, saying he never discussed the matter with Mr. Day or other MPs, and was simply getting ready in the event of a minority government." So, this document was created by a lawyer of the Alliance party, Day nor the entire Alliance party did not even know about it, thus reducing it to just another paper wasted in government (and believe me, there is a LOT of useless paper flying around...). Yet the Globe and Mail quickly dismisses this by stating "Still, the agreement included room at the bottom for the signatures of Mr. Day, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Mr. Clark, to be signed the day after the election." That kind of argument and writing would get you laughed out of any scholarly or academic position, yet it is somehow the lead headline over at the Globe and Mail.

So then, I guess, the argument goes something like this:
The Alliance party, which was freshly merged with the Reform party, which later merged with the Progressive Conservatives, who then changed their leader, and since then their entire policy, and party platform, had a document prepared by their lawyer, and sent to the BQ, without the knowledge of the entire party, and this somehow confirms that the Conservatives were in secret talks with the Bloc, and cannot argue that they would never agree to such a “deal with the devil.”

Wow. The only actual evidence they give is an unsigned document, with missing dates and numbers, no author, and the names of the three opposition leaders on the bottom. Heck, I could have come up with it, the only provisions included in the document is that Stockwell Day would be Prime Minister with the Bloc and PC support.

Does this stop the Globe and Mail from continuing with frivolous claims? Of course not. Citing "A Bloc supporter, who was informed about the talks with him at the time," also calling him/her a "Bloc official." Then making claims of Alliance concessions to things such as "increased transfers, as well as the management of the long-gun registry, to the provinces" and "compromises on contentious issues, such as a promise to respect a straight majority of 50-per cent plus one in the event of a future referendum on Quebec sovereignty." Now, in the 2000 election, the Alliance won 66 seats. 64 of 66 seats were from Alberta/Saskatchewan/BC. Do these sound like concessions that a party of ONLY Western support would make? Not unless they were attempting to commit political suicide. In fact, one of the MAJOR platform pieces of the Alliance was to END the long gun registry.

The timing of this article, along with its blatant bias against the Conservatives, its weak arguments and justifications by unnamed sources are extremely suspect. I am ashamed that this newspaper published such an article without first going through and double checking their facts. A simple phone call to Stockwell Day would have revealed that "he was aware of a secret plan in 2000 for him to take power through a formal coalition between the Bloc Québécois, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives." Surprisingly, the people at the CBC did their homework, next time I hope the Globe and Mail does the same.

If the Coalition Government Should Come to Pass...

2008-12-03T10:26:00.000-08:00

Let me first say that I believe Western Separation to be a last resort for the Western Provinces (and territories...). A coalition including the Bloc Quebecois is toxic for the West, we pay enough to the Federal coffers and they will only want more. Much more. Should the NDP-Liberal-BQ coalition succeed in forming government, I urge Alberta (Saskatchewan and British Columbia should consider the provisions as well) to follow the recommendations Stephen Harper et. al. made in their "Open Letter to Ralph Klein," published in the National Post, January 24, 2001.

For those out their emailing Alberta (and not to leave out SK/BC, they will hurt almost as much as Alberta with this coalition) MLAs, read this letter and consider its contents and, if you should agree, let you MLA know.

Before we look seriously into the drastic step of Alberta or Western seperation, these provisions should be strongly considered. If Quebec can get away with it, why not us? Building a firewall around Alberta is a feasible, legal step Alberta can take to show it's discontent with the current fiasco our Federal government is embroiled in. For a more detailed explanation of the Alberta Agenda, you could read the paper I wrote on the subject.

Further Evidence

2008-12-02T09:23:00.000-08:00

While not as accurate or legitimate, many news websites have been polling readers on their opinions regarding the proposed Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. Here are some results:

Global

Do you think Canada would be better served by a coalition government?

Yes 18.80 %
No 81.82 %

CTV

Who would you perfer to govern the country?

The Conservatives: 9783 votes (71%)
The NDP-Liberal coalition: 4032 votes (29%)

An NDP-Liberal coalition would:

Reflect the will of the people 4678 votes (27 %)
Be nothing more than a power grab 12849 votes (73 %)

CityNews

Do you think a coalition government is undemocratic?

Yes, its like a coup: Approx 60-65% (no numbers are posted)
No, its allowed under the rules: 20-25%
The Spirit of it seems to be: ~5%
Other: ~5%

Would you support a coalition government?

Yes, of course: ~20% (again, no numbers posted)
No, I'd rather go to the polls: ~25%
The Conservatives should stay in power: ~40%
Only if Dion wasn't in charge: ~10%

Toronto Star*

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says a coalition by the NDP and Liberals would be an undemocratic seizure of power. Do you agree?

Yes: 2247 48%
No: 2360 50%
Don't Know: 72 1%

Do think a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support would lead to good government?

Yes 2755 39%
No 3897 56%

*You will notice that this poll is no longer listed under Past Polls link on the Toronto Star webpage. As well, this is probably the most left wing, propagandist newspaper in all of Canada and the polls are close or missing. Quite telling.

CBC Calgary

Do you support a proposed coalition government?

Yes, it's a good solution (529) 14%
No, we need to go back to the polls (648) 18%
No, just let Stephen Harper and the Tories govern (2492) 68%

Total Votes: 3600

CBC

Should public subsidies that Canada's five major political parties receive be scrapped?

Yes, we could save $30 million a year: (7203) 58%
No, this is a political move to weaken the opposition: (5264) 42%

As well, I also stumbled across more recent leadership polling. Nanos Research published a leadership index November 27, 2008. It can be found by clicking on link above. To sum it up:

Harper

Trust: 27%
Competence: 36%
Vision for Canada: 28%
Leadership index score: 91

Dion

Trust: 13%
Competence: 10%
Vision for Canada: 15%
Leadership index score: 38

Layton

Trust: 20%
Competence: 20%
Vision for Canada: 17%
Leadership index score: 57

Duceppe

Trust: 5%
Competence: 4%
Vision for Canada: 6%
Leadership index score: 15

While it is up to the Govoner General to decide if the government has the support of the House, ignoring mass public opinion is means for political riot and unstability. Democracy is the will of the people, and if she chooses to ignore this, Canada is in for grave times ahead.

Of Coalitions and Consequences

2008-12-01T17:11:00.001-08:00

The last federal election in Canada occurred on Oct. 14, 2008 and awarded the Conservatives 143 of 308 seats and 37.65% of the popular vote, 12 seats shy of a majority government. The Liberal Party had it's worst showing since Canada's federation with 77 seats and 26.26% of the popular vote. The Bloc Quebecois came in 3rd with 49 seats and 9.98% of the popular vote. Finally, The NDP came in 4th place with 37 seats and 18.18% of the popular vote.

Today, the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Quebecois have agreed to form a coalition government should (when...) the current Conservative falls. Many people are incorrectly claiming that the coalition of the three parties form a majority of the vote, and add up the popular votes for each party arriving at a figure of 54.42% in support. They argue that this is a mandate of the Canadian people and thus, democratic.

They are excruciatingly incorrect in arguing this stand-point. In a poll commissioned by CTV and the Globe and Mail, the Strategic Council found that "when respondents were asked if they supported the Bloc being part of that (a Liberal-NDP) coalition, 57 per cent of Canadians said they would oppose it, while only 30 per cent were in support. Outside of Quebec, roughly two thirds of voters said they didn't want such a coalition."[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081010/election2008_national_poll_081012/20081012?s_name=election2008 (Last accessed Dec. 01, 08).] The last time I checked, 57% of Canadians constitute a majority and this coalition government would be in direct violation of a large majority of Canadian citizen’s opinions, resulting in a government not supported by almost 2/3rds of the country. If this is allowed to pass, it could be seen as the single most undemocratic movement in Canadian history.

Even the Liberal and NDP’s own supporters are opposed to this idea, with 47% of Liberal supporters opposed (41% in favour IF it brought down a Conservative government) and a massive 57% of NDP voters opposed to such a union including the Bloc Quebecois. “Unsurprisingly, 81 per cent of Conservative voters said they opposed the idea.”[Ibid.]

As of today, December 01, 2008, the coalition has chosen Minister Stephane Dion to succeed Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. This, again, flies in the face of democracy. See the “Angus Reid Poll: Dion Trails Harper and Layton on All Leadership Traits in Canada”[ http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=319&page=3 (Last accessed Dec. 1, 08).] Dion’s popularity reached as high as 26% while Harper held a steady approval rating around 35-38%. [http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=334&page=3 (Last accessed Dec. 1, 08).] Or take the Nanos poll revealing the following: Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (N=1,201,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20) (Poll taken September 24, 2008)

Conservative leader Stephen Harper 40% (NC)
NDP leader Jack Layton 19% (+2)
Liberal leader Stephane Dion 10% (-1)
Green Party leader Elizabeth May 5% (NC)
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 3% (NC)
None of them 7% (-1)
Unsure 17% (NC) [http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/93 (Last accessed Dec. 1, 08).]

Only adding fire to the debate is the idea in which to create a panel of economic advisors, consisting of Frank McKenna, Paul Martin, John Manley and Roy Romanow. Therefore, four UNELECTED former politicians would have immense political clout in deciding how tax dollars are spent. This is yet another example of the coalition’s continuing breach of democratic methods and more proof as to why the coalition cannot call themselves democratically legitimate.

The Governor General should recognize that it is NOT the will of the majority of Canadian citizens to be governed by a coalition of the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party of Canada. Thus, if these parties unite and strike down the Conservative minority government in a vote of non-confidence, she should immediately call for an election where the majority decision may be formed on whether or not to support the united left coalition, or the center/right Conservative party of Canada.

Atlantic Canada Reuslts 2008

2008-10-14T18:26:00.000-07:00

16 - Liberal
10 - Conservative
5 - NDP
1 - Other

Peter MacKay of the Conservative party beat out Elizabeth May of the Green party and the Conservatives lost all NFLD seats, but gained 1 in Atlantic Canada from the 2006 results.

UNOFFICIAL!!!

The Leaders Debate

2008-10-01T10:43:00.000-07:00

After watching last nights English Leadership Debate, I have come up with several conclusions.

First of all, I am not against the "Round" table format, having politicians seated rather than standing at a podium. I also would have to say that I prefer the "debate" portion rather than the American style "speech" debate, also showcased last night with the Vice Presidential Elect debate.

That being said, I would have liked to see several things run differently. I would have preferred a little more "speech" to go with the debate as it seemed that the majority of candidates seemed more concerned with smearing each others campaigns than actually debating the issues fully.

As well, I think that the day's of the Bloc Quebecois attending the National debate should come to an end. He did a masterful job of turning every question around and rewording it to sound something like "is this (good/bad) for Quebec?" I would not be opposed for a separate forum for Quebec, heck, Harper could even announce it and show that he loves Quebec and it's nationalism, but the Bloc have no reason to belong to either French or English National debates.

I would love a return to civility shown in days past during the debates. After watching the debate last night, I decided to go through the archived debates, found on the CBC website (Yes, Conservative bloggers DO actually read the CBC). One of the stark contrasts were that you could actually hear the different positions of each leader, rather than last night were you had to decipher it over the din of accusations and interruptions. On this note, I would like to pen an open letter to Jack Layton.

Mr. Layton,

I understand that you are in a very difficult position as the leader of the NDP, overcoming union-lover and socialist stereotypes is not an easy task. However, I noticed something last night that was quite appalling. There was a definite shift in tact and civility in the leadership debates over time, and a remarkable drop seemed to occur during your first debate and has continued in each of your appearances since. I believe that, although somewhat misguided, you mean well for your party, however, perhaps this justifies the fact that your party has not formed government or even the official opposition in Canadian history. Perhaps you need to rethink your debate strategy? I think that "working Canadians" would rather watch a leader who is more calm, composed, and does not resort to shots like "Where is your platform, under your sweater?" This is the kind of comments I would expect from the leader of a party who knows that they do not stand a chance of forming the government, Ie. the Bloc Quebecois, but from a party hoping to form, at the very least, the official opposition. As well as the quips, your constant interrupting was also quite concerning. It appeared to me that you would rather drown out opposing policies than intellectually debate them, again, not a quality I would look for in my future Prime Minister.
Regards,

Ty

Finally, the last point I would like to make is that I believe that Ms. May had no real justification for appearing at the debate. While I agree that the Green party is enjoying an increase in polling, having 0 elected members of parliament shows to me that your party is not yet a legitimate National contender. What would stop the Communist Party from paying a large sum (under the table, of course) to a NDP back-bencher to cross the floor to their party and thus justifying their leaders participation in the debate?

With some of these ideas implemented, we would see a debate amongst the 3 main parties (although, In my opinion, only 2 have the chance of ever forming government) in a more structured format (imagine penalties for going over allotted time and interrupting another leader during the debate? Say, a loss of 5 seconds for each incursion, I think that would make it an excellent debate...), less piling on of the incumbent (a problem consistently seen over the years, especially with the addition of 4 parties or more BUT this years debates were the worst I have seen, even having gone through several years worth of debates last night...) and clearer positions on topics and actual party platform being able to come through. While this format may be seen as less entertaining, these last 2 debates were absolutely horrible to watch, and I would bet many people turned channel to the American VP "debate," which is (arguably) less entertaining.

Reasons for the Charlottetown Accord's Failure

2008-04-13T00:23:00.000-07:00

Failure at Charlottetown:

Why the Accord Broke Down

Ty Ludwig

3/31/2008

Preamble

At the centre of any political hurdle lies a battle between beliefs and values, often seen between conflicts of state and individual rights. These battles take form under different issues and the same held true with regards to constitutional reform. Constitutional reform in Canada began receiving more attention throughout the 1960s and 1970s until Pierre Trudeau brought the constitution to Canada in 1982. This process began earlier when Trudeau pledged to “patriate the Constitution, give it a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and an amendment formula” (Guy, 2001: 296). Trudeau went into negotiations with the different provinces over the specific details and came to an agreement with all of the provinces except for Quebec. As a result, Quebec did not sign the Constitution act, 1982 which paved the way for the attempted constitutional reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. The most important of these attempts were represented by the Meech Lake Accord, 1987 and the Charlottetown Accord, 1992. There were completely different sets of factors which doomed each accord, as the Meech Lake Accord was an agreement between Premiers and their individual provinces, while the Charlottetown Accord’s fate was decided in a national referendum. The fact remains, however, that both major pieces of constitutional legislation failed to garner national support for a variety of reasons.

Introduction

To properly understand the failure of the Charlottetown Accord, several factors must first be considered. For one, the Meech Lake Accord and the impact of its failure must be analysed as it was the stepping stone toward the Charlottetown Accord and was entirely contained within the bounds of the 1992 accord (Burgess, 1993). Several factors surrounding the Charlottetown Accord must also be taken into consideration, such as the political figures in support and against it, as they all impact as to why the accord ultimately failed. The Accord itself must be analysed for reasons of failure as it contained many implications nationally and provincially. Finally, the method chosen to allow the accords passage, a national referendum, must also be analysed as this may have also contributed to the Charlottetown Accord’s ultimate demise. Undertaking thorough examination it will be shown that all of these factors played a different role in the failure of the Charlottetown Accord and, although varied in the degree to which they affected the outcome; it will be shown that the Accord was destined to failure from its very beginning, subsequent to the Meech Lake Accord’s failure, to its final gasp in the 1992 national referendum.

Meech Lake Accord, 1987

The Meech Lake Accord is often looked upon as a measure which came very close to becoming ratified. The Accord had a “three-year ratification window (which) was adopted and Parliament and eight legislatures ratified the Accord in fairly short order” (Johnston et al., 1996: 47). This meant that only two provinces failed to quickly usher in legislation approving of the Accord, which proved fatal as neither province ratified the Accord before the 1990 deadline. Negotiations between Mulroney and the Premiers of each province had proven, at first, to be successful. The Accord soon stumbled into major problems in the form of: Elijah Harper in Manitoba refusing support, Clyde Wells in Newfoundland first accepting the Accord then terminating his approval, and the destruction of the Conservative government in New Brunswick and subsequent disapproval by new Liberal Leader Frank McKenna. These problems, along with Quebec’s Liberal Premier Bourassa’s use of the notwithstanding clause to “...protect its sign legislation against the Charter...” “(e)licited a chorus of disapproval from English Canada that was a major factor in the defeat of Meech Lake” (Cairns, 1992: 122).

Elijah Harper refused to support the Accord based on the fact that there was no First Nations representation within its five major conditions and this proved to be one of the fatal strikes that Meech Lake would endure. Along with Harper’s refusal, one of the major reasons that the Accord failed had to do with Clyde Wells and his political manoeuvring. Wells initially supported the measure; however upon learning of Harper’s stand in the Manitoba Legislature, he withdrew his support and adjourned the Newfoundland legislature before a free vote could be held (Russell 1992: 75). Frank McKenna’s support was finally relinquished with twenty days left until the deadline for provincial ratification with an emergency meeting on the Meech Lake Accord. This meeting diffused the situation in New Brunswick but failed to garner the support of Clyde Wells in Newfoundland which spelt destruction for the Accord.

Ultimately, there were various severe consequences for not ratifying the Meech Lake Accord which factored into the failure of the Charlottetown Accord and these consequences proved quite different for Quebec than in the rest of Canada. The Accord dealt quite heavily with issues pertaining to Quebec, and Quebeckers developed “a sense of national rejection (that) was both widespread and deeply felt” (Vipond, 1993: 40). Due to this, support for separatism reached new highs (Dion, 1992: 86-88) and Quebec’s Liberal party commissioned the Allaire Report creating more demands if the province were to ever enter into the constitution (Guy, 2001: 300). The results for the rest of Canada were quite lax. Many believed that the government should focus on economic issues rather than dabble in constitutional changes, while others believed that the differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada were too great to be able to bring together through the constitution, and wondered if uniting Canada “was still worth the effort” (Watts, 1991: 170). Another consequence arose from the political stand Elijah Harper represented when he blocked the passage of the Meech Lake Accord in the Manitoba Legislature, which resulted in Aboriginal issues taking a much greater role in the Charlottetown Accord. These consequences all played major roles in how the next round of constitutional negotiations would develop and subsequently, fail.

The Charlottetown Accord, 1992

The Charlottetown Accord was a conglomeration of compromises by the many different parties involved in negotiating it. As Russell describes it, “the two years leading up to the Charlottetown Accord the public, through all kinds of committees and commissions, was consulted as never before” (1993: 35). After the Meech Lake Accord’s failure, Quebec Liberal premier Bourassa together with separatist leader Parizeau commissioned the Allaire Report laying out demands for Quebec to consider returning to constitutional reform bargaining. Basically, the report “wanted extensive decentralization of powers to Quebec, demanding exclusive control over twenty-two jurisdictions and recommending that the federal government act as a kind of clearing house for the provinces” (Guy, 2001: 300) . As well, another committee known as Belanger-Campeau Commission demanded the same decentralization of powers, along with a referendum to decide Quebec’s sovereignty. The Federal government countered with their own committee known as the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada which reopened negotiations with Quebec and ultimately set the stage for the Charlottetown Accord.

Unlike the Meech Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord contained a whole host of Canada-wide constitutional issues, such as senate reform, aboriginal self-government, and Quebec as a distinct society. One of the major reasons the Accord ultimately failed was the disagreements between Quebec and the rest of Canada on both senate reform and the constitutional powers Quebeckers. Alan C. Cairns points out that a major flaw in the proposal was the fact that it watered down Quebec’s ambitions for decentralization and effectively involves the province to an even greater extent in national institutions. Many, including the Western Reform party, pointed out the fact that “Quebec’s greatest gains were in central institutions – the Supreme Court, the House of Commons, a double majority in the Senate with the Quebec members in effect nominated by the Quebec government, and a veto with other provinces on constitutional changes to central institutions” (Cairns, 1998: 38). Due to this, Quebec promptly voted against the measure (see Appendix A) and sent a clear message to the rest of Canada just as to how high their constitutional demands were.

At the same time, Western Canada resoundingly voted against the Charlottetown Accord and a major factor of this result lay in the concessions for a reformed senate. Western Canada had been negotiating for better regional representation and had looked to a “Triple E” senate as a solution. While provisions were made for senate reform, it was deemed by the Reform Party to be “the less-than-2-3 Senate” and did not appease the West as it did not “satisfy aspirations for the regional equality” (Noel, 1998: 75). Westerners had many problems with the concessions made in order to achieve a consensus such as granting the Provinces the choice to as to how to choose their senators, a consensus Quebec pushed for. The greatest, albeit symbolic, slight to the West lay in the equal representation they had pushed for and were suppose to receive in the senate. In actuality, “the boosts actually given were small and still left Alberta and British Columbia less well represented in the new House than in the old” (Johnston et al., 1996: 57). Combine this with the fact that the Senate would only hold a limited veto , thereby undermining it’s “effective” status (Lusztig, 1994: 763); it is not hard to make a connection between the concessions the Charlottetown Accord made and the vote results in British Columbia and Alberta (see Appendix A).

Finally, another factor contributing to the failure of the Charlottetown Accord can be attributed to the concessions, or lack thereof, made for Minority rights. The Reform party, claiming to represent Western Canada’s best interests, took a staunch position on a concession for Aboriginal self-governance. Along with the Reform party, British Columbia’s premier claimed that the Accord “does not do BC any favours” (Lusztig, 1994: 766) which led to many other prestigious Western politicians to take a stance against the Charlottetown Accord. One of the largest oversights of the Charlottetown Accord occurred through lack of representation for a large amount of different minority groups. While the list of those invited to take part in negotiating the Accord included four principle Aboriginal groups, it did not include any representation from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC). “The exclusion of NAC President Judy Rebick was considered a grave insult” proclaimed Michael Lusztig, causing the organization to proclaim that “the Accord created a hierarchy of rights in which women ranked behind groups such as linguistic minorities, Aboriginals and Quebeckers” (1994: 767). With such a large amount of concessions in favour of Aboriginal rights, one is led to believe that a great amount of support for the Charlottetown Accord would be seen amongst Aboriginals. As Vipond describes, “the Charlottetown Accord enshrined the ‘inherent right’ of aboriginal self-government, recognizing aboriginal governments as one of the three orders of government in the country.” This would mean that Aboriginals would be granted the ability “to safeguard and develop their languages, cultures, economies, identities, and traditions” (1993: 46). It should be noted that exactly how Aboriginal self-government would rule was left to be decided by the courts in five years time, from the signing of the Accord. Despite all of these provisions, “Elections Canada estimates that 62 percent of the Aboriginal community rejected the accord” (Lusztig, 2002: 124). This proved to be yet another fatal shortcoming contributing to the failure of the Charlottetown Accord.

The Negotiators, Campaigners, and Opposition

A third major piece to the Charlottetown Accord’s failure can be described by the groups which negotiated the actual Accord, those who campaigned for it, and those who opposed it. It is important to analyse the impact of each of these individual pieces as each played a role in the ultimate failure of the Charlottetown Accord. Michael Lusztig argued that the negotiation of the Accord was really about four conflicting groups, which he referred to as “mega constitutional” orientations (MCO’s) , building off of Russell’s increasingly familiar constitutional concepts (Lusztig, 1994; Russell, 1992). According to this model, there was a Quebec MCO, a Western MCO, a Trudeau MCO, and a Minoritarian MCO all represented at the bargaining floor during the negotiations of the Charlottetown Accord. Each MCO had its own unique agenda, often conflicting and even contradicting that of other MCO’s This new Accord had sixty new constitutional amendments, compared to the seven contained in Meech Lake, and seventeen members negotiating these amendments, as opposed to the eleven in the Meech Lake negotiations. With all of these conflicting groups fighting for their own best interests, the Charlottetown Accord was destined to fail from the beginning. As Lusztig notes, “there are at least four conflicting constitutional worldviews in Canada that cannot accommodate compromise” and because of this and a few other factors; “the constitutional process truly can be said to be in a state of paralysis” (2002: 128).

One of the most influential politicians of the time and the chief negotiator of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords was then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. One of the factors as to why Charlottetown ultimately failed has to do with both Mulroney’s popularity during the 1992 referendum, and his campaign in favour of the Accord. To put Mulroney’s popularity in context, it was only a few years removed from the Oka Crisis and the Free Trade Agreement was still not seen in a positive light (see Appendix B). As such, Reform Party Leader Preston Manning began to denounce the Charlottetown Accord as the “Mulroney deal.” Leduc and Pammett use extensive polling data to suggest that Mulroney’s popularity may have played a significant role in the failure of the Accord and claim that “his massive unpopularity cost (the YES campaign) heavily in terms of votes” (Leduc and Pammett, 1995: 31). Brian Mulroney also displayed several detrimental tactics throughout his campaign, “arrogantly suggest(ing) that only ‘enemies of Canada’ would oppose the agreement” (Leduc and Pammett, 1995: 9). These factors helped contribute to the demise of the Charlottetown Accord.

On the other side of the debate, there was a healthy opposition to the Accord. Pierre Trudeau and Preston Manning both played a small role in the factors which contributed to the Charlottetown Accord’s failure. Trudeau’s popularity did not play as significant a factor as it did during the negotiations of the Meech Lake Accord, however his campaigning against the Charlottetown Accord proved to be quite successful. Trudeau made several passionate speeches and wrote widely read articles based on the Accord and generally ran a fairly successful NO campaign. As an illustration of his impact on the Charlottetown Accord, Citizens notes: “within days of his (Trudeau’s) speech urging the rejection of the Accord, the ‘yes’ vote dropped by 20 points outside Quebec” (Gidengil et al., 2004: 79). Preston Manning was the champion of the NO vote in the West, coming out hard on such issues as the Senate, Quebec’s constitutional powers as written in the Charlottetown Accord, while he “appealed to anti-government sentiment” (LeDuc and Pammett, 1995: 10). Manning’s referral to the Accord as the “Mulroney deal” ultimately whittled away the YES vote and contributed to the ultimate failure of the Charlottetown Accord.

Political Culture

There are several different factors under the heading of political culture which were reasons as to the failure of the Charlottetown Accord. This is the section that is most hotly disputed among political scholars, taking positions based on observations and analysis of the Charlottetown Accord vote. Several key issues emerge, such as the elitist positioning, emerging political ideology, and even based off referendums in general. There are many competing views on the political behaviour which brought down the Accord, such as Nelson Wiseman’s regions theory. He believes that these cleavages are regional, and argues that the Accord failed because the PQ and the Reform party took advantage of the situation and exploited these regional differences to unite their respective regions to vote against both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (2007: 266). Lusztig believes that the main reason for failure was due to mass input/legitimization and the ultimate failure of any measure within these combines (1994: 771). Peach argues that it is really all about the relationship between the public and politician and the intergovernmental relationships of the time which were fatal to the Accord (2004). The three main factors which demand the most attention are the reliability of referendums, the regional debate, and the relationship between the mass public and the elites.

Regionalism is a large section of political behaviour that is still quite contentious and open for debate. Some scholars, such as Simeon and Elkins (1974) and Wiseman (2007), believe that provincial regionalism is the major factor when analysing voter trends across Canada. Others agree that regional issues are most prevalent but use different regions, such as Henderson (2004). Finally, some believe that the entire debate over regionalism in Canada has been overstated and does not play a major role in voter’s decisions (see Clarke et al. 2001 for more details). When investigating the cause of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord’s failure, it is impossible not to not the impact of regional political parties, such as the Reform party and the PQ. Regionalism played a major role in the undoing of the Accord as these two parties united their respective regions and brought the vote out heavily in favour of the NO side, of which both were campaigning for. Lusztig describes the “emergence... of a distinct Western MCO” as proving that “successful constitutional bargaining (is) more difficult to achieve” (1994: 770). This Western MCO was politicised by the Reform party of Canada, who held a strong Western bias. They began by only running candidates in Western Canada and campaigned on a slogan of “the West wants in,” clearly representing a western regional cleavage which was demonstrated in the polls from British Columbia and Alberta following the Charlottetown Accord.

On the other side of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and the Partis Quebecois had their impact on the Accord in Quebec. While the Partis Quebecois were not in power during the Charlottetown Accord, they had begun to gain some momentum. The BQ’s aim became “not to restructure the Canadian federation but to break it up” (Russell, 1993: 36). The BQ only ran candidates in Quebec and in 1993, became the official opposition party of Canada. Lucien Bouchard was the leader of the party in 1992 and campaigned strongly against the Accord. Regionalism could also be observed in the Maritimes as the majority of the provinces voted in favour of the Charlottetown Accord. Regionalism played a significant role in the downfall of the Accord as shown by the referendum results, however, referendums themselves have been called into question as to their reliability.

Many find it easy to blame factors which are most obvious for the failure of the Charlottetown Accord. When examined, however, the very construct for portraying the public’s opinion of the entire Accord may be called into question. The purpose of a referendum is to get the publics opinion on a certain issue, usually because it is of large consequences to the country. Referendums are not supposed to be reflective of any other factor than the question being asked in them and voters are supposed to be well educated on the subject of the referendum. This simply did not happen. One of the major factors which interfered with referendum results was the popularity of Brian Mulroney, which has already been discussed in this paper. The general public opinion of Mulroney was reaching all time lows and the 1992 referendum opened a door for those who were really discontent with him to send a message through. There are plenty of other factors which affected the referendum results that did not have to do with Mulroney. Gidengil et al. argue that the least well informed people of the 1992 referendum only made modest gains of knowledge from the campaigning, and those who were well informed could usually tell where a political figure, such as Trudeau, stood on the issue. As such, “the fact that the least informed only made small gains in knowledge casts doubt on the optimistic assumption that referendums provide an ‘instrument of civic education’” (2004: 64). These low informed voters usually end up voting according to their feelings, and as a result “feelings do not make up for ideas, and poorly informed voters make much less consistent choices than well-informed voters do” (Johnston et al., 1996: 282). Many of these “feelings” were swayed toward the NO side as a result of several negative polls in the few days leading up to the referendum. This would mean that many of those poorly informed voters did not actually make the decision that best reflected their own values and beliefs. The process involved with a referendum provided yet another reason as to why the Charlottetown Accord failed.

Another factor stemming off of public perception was that of political “elitism” which was supposed to have been defeated with the Meech Lake Accord. Political elitism was considered a factor as to why the original constitutional amendment failed as it was largely perceived that the first ministers conferred together and drafted the amendment without any public input (Stein, 1997: 315-321). The negotiators of the Charlottetown Accord realized this and as a result, “the federal and provincial governments sought ways to avoid some of the more blatant shortcomings of that earlier negotiation process” (Stein, 1997: 324). Nonetheless, there was still a large public perception that the entire Accord was drafted by governmental elites and the will of the people was generally ignored throughout the process. A strong example of this can be seen in the headline “The Prime Minister scoffed yesterday at demands that Canadians be allowed to see the full legal text of the proposed constitutional amendments before they vote in the referendum,” (The Globe and Mail, September 30, 1992) which severely damaged the YES supporters attempts to distant the Charlottetown Accord from the failures of the Meech Lake Accord. In the article, Mulroney suggests that voters would not understand the legal text of the Charlottetown Accord and therefore portrayed a position that the mass public should put its trust into the political elite. This proved fatal to the Accord, as voters on the referendum day “were allowed to indulge themselves in negativism that was partly tribal, partly (perhaps self-indulgently) anti-elite” (Johnston et al., 1996: 285). Johnston reiterates this position, explaining that “any proposal that makes it through the ministerial processes... is likely to fail with the people” (1993, 48). It was this sort of negativism within the political culture that played a contributing role into the failure of the Charlottetown Accord.

Conclusion

The Charlottetown accord was an extremely complex constitutional amendment which had more reasons of failure than can be written about in a single paper. Major factors and issues can be pointed out as overarching causes for the failure of the Charlottetown Accord. First, the Meech Lake Accord and its own failures were examined and shown to have negatively impacted the Accord’s negotiations and forced the creation of concessions which were too controversial to survive a referendum. Second, tying into failures of the Meech Lake Accord, certain proposals and measures contained with the Charlottetown Accord were highly divisive within Canada. Such proposals as: the recognition of Aboriginal self-government, Quebec as a distinct society, and compromises on the senate which were poorly taken by Western leaders, all factored into the Accord’s failure. Third, again tying into the previous point, several key figures played a role in the demise of the Charlottetown Accord. Figures such as Prime Minister (of the time) Brian Mulroney, whose national popularity was terribly low, brought down the Accord, to the glee of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Reform party leader Preston Manning. Finally, when observed from a theoretical point of view, there were several political behaviours observed across Canada which contributed to the Accord’s failure. The political cleavage of regionalism of the time worked against the referendum, as the separatists in Quebec and the alienated Western Canada united in a resounding NO vote. Along with this, there are questions as to the use of a referendum to portray the mass public’s collective opinion. This system has been shown to be inherently flawed when dealing with such a complex piece of legislation and thus undermined the YES vote on referendum day. Finally, the culture of negativity towards the political elite, partly fuelled by the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and pointed comments made by influential political supporters of the Charlottetown Accord, ultimately played a role in its demise.

Appendix A – 1992 Referendum results by province

% YES % NO

BRITISH COLUMBIA 32.0 68.0

ALBERTA 39.7 60.1

SASKATCHEWAN 44.5 55.1

MANITOBA 38.0 61.6

ONTARIO 49.8 49.6

QUEBEC 42.4 55.4

NEW BRUNSWICK 61.3 38.0

NOVA SCOTIA 48.5 51.1

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 73.6 26.0

NEWFOUNDLAND 63.0 36.5

YUKON 43.3 56.1

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 60.0 39.0

NATIONAL TOTAL 44.6 54.4

References

Burgess, Michael C. 1993. "Constitutional reform in Canada and the 1992 referendum." Parliamentary Affairs 46:363.

Cairns, Alan C. 1992. Charter Versus Federalism: The Dilemmas of Constitutional Reform. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Cairns, Alan C. 1998. “The Charlottetown Accord: Multinational Canada v. Federalism” In Constitutional Predicament: Canada After the Referendum of 1992, ed. Curtis Cook. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Clarke, Harold D., Jon H. Pammett, and Marianne C. Stewart. 2001. "The Forest for the Trees: Regional (Dis)Similarities in Canadian Political Culture." In Regionalism in Canadian Politics, ed. Lisa Young and Keith Archer. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Dion, Stephane. 1992. “Explaining Quebec Nationalism,” In The Collapse of Canada?, ed. Kent Weaver. Washington, DC: Brookings

Gidengil, Elisabeth, Andre Blais, Neil Nevitte, and Richard Nadeau. 2004. Citizens. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Guy, John James. 2001. People, Politics and Government: A Canadian Perspective, 5^th Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Henderson, Ailsa. 2004. “Regional Political Cultures in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 37:595-615.

Johnston, Richard. 1993. “An Inverted Logroll: The Charlottetown Accord and the Referendum.” Political Science and Politics. 26:43-48.

Johnston, Richard, Neil Nevitte, and Elisabeth Gidengil. 1996. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Camadoam Referendum. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

LeDuc, Lawrence and Jon H. Pammett. 1995. “Referendum Voting: Attitudes and Behaviour in the 1992 Constitutional Referendum.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 28:3-33.

Lusztig, Michael. 1994. “Constitutional Paralysis: Why Canadian Constitutional Initiatives Are Doomed to Fail.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 27:747-771.

Lusztig, Michael. 2002. “Megaconstitutional Reform is Not Desirable.” In Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues, 4^th Edition. ed. Mark Charlton and Paul Barker. Scarborough: Thompson Nelson.

Noel, Alain. 1998. “Deliberating a Constitution: The Meaning of the Canadian Referendum of 1992.” In Constitutional Predicament: Canada After the Referendum of 1992, ed. Curtis Cook. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Peach, Ian. 2004. “The Death of Deference: National Policy-Making in the Aftermath of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords.” In SIPP Public Policy Paper. 26.

Russell, Peter H. 1992. Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians be a Sovereign People? Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Russell, Peter H. 1993. “The End of Mega Constitutional Politics in Canada?” In Political Science and Politics. 26:33-37.

Stein, Michael B. 1997. “Improving the Process of Constitutional Reform in Canada: Lessons from the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Constitutional Rounds.” In Canadian Journal of Political Science. 30:307-338.

The Globe and Mail, September 30, 1992

Vipond, Robert C. 1993. “Seeing Canada through the Referendum: Still a House Divided.” In Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 23:39-55.

Watts, Ronald L. 1991. “Canadian Federalism in the 1990s: Once More in Question.” In Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 21:169-190.

Wiseman, Nelson. 2007. In Search of Canadian Political Culture. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Alberta General Election 2008

2008-03-03T16:40:00.000-08:00

Today is the day that Alberta goes to the polls and re-elects the Progressive Conservatives. The question is, by how much? There are not many polls that have been released and it seems that the interest level of this election is extremely low. The latest polls that can be found were done in mid January, all which suggest PC majority government. There is a general feel of unrest with Ed Stelmach as Premier however, he polled the highest for major party leaders for who Albertans think would be the best Premier and was deemed "most trustworthy" by Ledger Marketing. The big number that most pundits are pointing to is the percentage of undecided vote. Ledger Marketing is reporting a 25% undecided vote rate which could really play with the poll numbers. My prediction? Conservatives take 53 seats, Liberals 24, NDP 5, WRA 1. I think that the Conservatives will take approximately 52% of the popular vote. I believe that these low numbers (relatively speaking...) will set off a leadership race in the PC's party and hopefully Ed Stelmach will be replaced with a more charismatic and conservative leader.

Book Comparison: "The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness" by Reinhold Niebuhr with "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville

2007-12-19T09:23:00.000-08:00

Democratic Faith

Tocqueville and Niebuhr: political philosophers positions on religion and politics

Religion plays a prominent role in government within the United States of America. This has been true ever since the declaration of independence and drafting of the constitution and continues to hold true today. Many philosophers and politicians weighed in on drafting the constitution, including but not limited to John Locke, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These political and philosophical thinkers played a crucial role in deciding exactly how religion was to be defined and the relationship between politics and religion. Two influential authors who critiqued this relationship are Alexis de Tocqueville, with his book entitled Democracy in America, and Reinhold Niebuhr with his book, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. Although Niebuhr wrote his book over a century later, there are many similarities which both authors observed and felt compelled to point out, as well as some differing arguments as to the future of America. This paper intends to compare and contrast each individuals view points in an attempt to predict the future of democratic faith in America. It will show that, while both Niebuhr and Tocqueville agree on major points regarding religion and politics, each scholar attacks the issue using a different approach.

Reinhold Niebuhr

In his aptly titled book, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, Niebuhr argues that there are two different types of people in this world: the children of light, and the children of darkness. He defines “those who believe that self-interest should be brought under the discipline of a higher law...” as “the children of light.”[1] Further, he defines the children of darkness as “the moral cynics, who declare that a strong nation need acknowledge no law beyond its strength” and he claims that “The children of darkness are evil because they know no law beyond the self.”[2] Niebuhr uses these terms to define those who he believes to be morally good and working towards the best interest of democracy to be the children of light, while the children of darkness are those who work to promote supreme individualist ideals which (as Niebuhr argues) work against democracy. Niebuhr further develops arguments against ruthless individualism or the alternative, citing both Nazism and Marxism as examples as to why these ideologies should be avoided. Throughout the book, Niebuhr slowly develops a president for the children of light, in order to put into practice his perfected example of democratic faith.

The Children of Light

Central to Niebuhr’s argument are those he chooses to call the children of light, based off of the scriptural passage found in Luke 16:8 “The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”[3] Niebuhr uses this biblical passage as his reference because, in his opinion, “the children of light are virtuous because they have some conception of a higher law than their own will. They are usually foolish because they do not know the power of self-will.”[4] Because of this, the children of the light are naive and do not understand this power of self-interest, even among themselves, which makes them susceptible to misleading and deceptive tactics employed by the children of darkness. This is pertinent to democracy as “our democratic civilization has been built, not by the children of darkness but by foolish children of light.”[5] Niebuhr believes that the children of light need to be armed with wisdom about the self-interest which threatens the community. One of the greatest threats to democracy, as he argues, is the misleading and cynicism of the children of darkness.

The Children of Darkness

Niebuhr’s antagonists are known as either the children of the world or the children of darkness. He claims that “The children of darkness are evil because they know no law beyond the self. They are wise, though evil, because they understand the power of self-interest.”[6] Not only do they understand self-interest, they use it to further malevolence in the world. A very good example of this can be found in the description of Machiavelli’s Prince, where he commands the prince to “not depart from good, when possible, but know how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity.”[7] However, Machiavelli recognizes that “a prince who wants to maintain his state is often forced to not be good.”[8] Further still, Machiavelli advises the prince to study those who have won major wars and learn from their victories, so as to “never remain idle in peaceful times, but with his industry make capital of them in order to be able to profit from them in adversities...”[9] An example of this, as Niebuhr describes, is the rise of Nazism while democratic nations stood by and watched. The children of darkness, understanding that the democratic nations were governed by the naive children of light, “skilfully set nation against nation,” which is why “the democratic world came so close to disaster.”[10] When it is further analysed, Niebuhr argues that most of the time the stupidity and foolishness of the children of light is the greater power than the malice and cynicism of the children of darkness.

The Individual and the Community

One of Niebuhr’s main arguments has to do with distinguishing between the power of the individual and of the community. He argues that the children of darkness are excessively individualist and the children of light must be infused with “wisdom in order that they may beguile, deflect, harness and restrain self-interest, individual and collective, for the sake of the community.”[11] Niebuhr picks up upon John Locke’s principles of a community, where “whosoever therefore out of a state of nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into society, to the majority of the community...”[12] Again, where Locke believes that men naturally organize themselves into communities,[13] Niebuhr believes “man, being more than a natural creature, is not interested merely in physical survival but in prestige and social approval.”[14] Niebuhr argues that the government must have the ability to resolve conflicts with the interest of a higher power in mind.[15] However, modern secularism, though divided into many schools, “agreed in rejecting the Christian doctrine of original sin.”[16] This, Niebuhr argues, is the cause of many problems arising within modern democracy (such as the ignorance of democratic nations toward Nazism) and has the workings of the children of darkness evident within it. Without the doctrine of original sin recognized within government, humans begin to believe that they can find perfection in and of themselves. This is Niebuhr’s main concern in regards to democracy and was particularly evident when issues concerning property are investigated.

Property

Niebuhr begins his discussion of property by describing the historical thought, especially with regards to religion. He moves on to point out two fallacies within modern secularist thought, which has split itself between bourgeoisie thought and liberal thought. Within bourgeoisie thought, excessive individualism has again crept up as the foremost problem among secular democracies. Niebuhr argues that because of the excessive individualist thought, greed and isolationism would drive individuals into doing anything it took to gain more power. [17] Property, in this sense, is an equivalent to power and the excessive want for more power usually results in aggression in order to gain. The Christian view of property is what Niebuhr decides to be most fitting in the current context. He states that the “sinful selfishness of men, however, had destroyed this ideal possibility [no distinction between ‘thine and mine’] and made exclusive possession the only safeguard against the tendency of men to take advantage of one another.”[18] Liberal thought and Marxism encountered different problems than excessive individualism but each had a similar problem. Niebuhr argued that “the socialization of property as proposed in Marxism is too simple a solution to the problem.”[19] Niebuhr links liberalism and Marxism and are mislead due to the illusions of the children of light. “Liberalism makes this mistake in regard to private property and Marxism makes it in regard to socialized property,”[20] he argues. Marxist and liberal theories have underestimated the power in which property holds, such as over economic positions and the human desire for more property as such. Thus, Niebuhr argues:

“The best possible distribution of power for the sake of justice and the best possible management of this equilibrium for the sake of order. None of these propositions solves any specific issue of property in a given instance. But together they set the property issue within the framework of democratic procedure. For democracy is a method of finding proximate solutions for insoluble problems.”[21]

Alexis de Tocqueville

Sent on a mission from the French government to investigate American jail systems; Alexis de Tocqueville wandered all over America and did not limit his observations to that of only the jail system. Tocqueville wrote extensively on the system of government in the United States which was quite new to him: Democracy. Thus, three years after his return to France, Tocqueville had published his first volume of Democracy in America, the second volume begin published five years after the first. The book covers a wide variety of issues regarding the state of democracy in America, including the separation or religion from politics, self-interest well understood, and the pursuit of material well being. These are considered to be the key issues to democracy, especially regarding religious faith, according to Tocqueville. Tocqueville has the belief that religion and politics must both change in order to work properly.

Separation of Religion and Politics

Tocqueville speaks very highly of the separation of religion and politics in the United States, stating that “all attributed the peaceful dominion that religion exercises in their country principally to the complete separation of church and state.”[22] Tocqueville was unfamiliar with this type of a system as the governments in Europe all tied their religion to politics. He believes that this very separation is what gives religion the amount of power he perceived during his time in America. In his position, he is comparing American systems to European systems. When it comes to the topic of religion and politics, there is a stark contrast. There are several reasons in which Tocqueville states as to why it is an abysmal idea to tie religion to a particular government. For one, Tocqueville believes that “in allying itself with a political power, religion increases its power over some and loses the hope of reigning over all.”[23] This is because not ever person believes in certain forms of government; this is evident in the variety of choices one has while voting. Through allying with one of these governments, religion isolates certain people while gaining, albeit temporary, power.

Yet another of Tocqueville’s qualms with allying religion and politics lies in the inherent instability of governments. As he observed, “in Europe, Christianity has allowed itself to be intimately united with the powers of the earth. Today these powers are falling and it is almost buried under their debris. It is a living (thing) that someone wanted to attach to the dead: cut the bonds that hold it back and it will rise again.”

Finally, the problem of religion and politics as one can be observed in the death of a religion. Tocqueville argues that religion does not need government to be powerful and therefore, there is no need for the two to be allied. This can be seen in the discussion of religion, where “alone, it can hope for immortality; bound to ephemeral powers, it follows their fortune and often falls with the passion of a day that sustain them.”[24]

Self-interest Well Understood

Tocqueville spends a great amount of time arguing for the doctrine of self-interest well understood, not to be confused with individual self-interest. Basically, self-interest well understood is a way of life which pierces all aspects of life and it is found in everyone whether rich or poor. It is where citizens devote time to one another, in sort of an enlightened love. They sacrifice a part of themselves for the good of the nation and make it a way of life to work toward virtue. However, it alone will not make men virtuous but teach many to be “regulated, temperate, moderate, farsighted, masters of themselves... if it does not lead directly to virtue through the will, it brings them near to it insensible though habits. [25]

This philosophy of self-interest well understood is limiting to some. “The doctrine of self-interest well understood perhaps prevents some men from mounting far above the ordinary level of humanity; but many others who were falling below do attain it and are kept there. Consider some individuals, they are lowered. View the species, it is elevated.”[26] This doctrine helps work against the weaknesses of men, in that it “turns personal interest against itself, and to direct the passions, it makes use of the spur that excites them.”[27] Not only does self-interest well understood protect against the laziness inherent to men, it directs interests away from solely personal and focuses them onto something less destructive to democracy.

Tocqueville felt so strongly about self-interest well understood, he believed that “the minds of moralists of our day ought to turn, therefore, principally toward it. Even should they judge it imperfect, they would still have to adopt it out of necessary.”[28] Some would argue that this doctrine would not mesh well with religion. Because religion is based on relinquishing one’s rights in order to obtain a higher good, they would argue that self-interest well understood offers no reward worth taking to a religious person. Tocqueville adamantly believes this to be false, and painstakingly builds up an argument against such thinking.[29] “I therefore do not see clearly why the doctrine of self-interest well understood would turn men away from religious beliefs, and it seems to me, on the contrary, that I am sorting out how it brings them near to them.”[30]

Material Well-being

Tocqueville acknowledges the fact that in a democracy, there is an innate attraction to material goods and provides interesting insight as to why this is. Tocqueville claims that while the degree to which people feel it differs, material well-being touches all Americans.[31] The reasoning that Tocqueville uses when describing why it is American’s feel the incessant need to pursue material prosperity is twofold. Because he uses Europe as a contrast, it appears that America is much more into material goods than it actually is. This is because Europeans are still shaking off the effects of the aristocracy, and under this regime, material prosperity was not a factor. This is because the rich have possessed wealth without troubles while the poor are too poverty stricken to be able to even think or dream about material well-being.[32]

America’s obsession with material goods draws from their history. Because America was recently settled (at the time of authorship of Democracy in America, that is), “most of the rich have been poor... now that victory is gained, the passions that accompanied the struggle survive it; they stand as if intoxicated in the midst of the little enjoyments that they have pursued for forty years.”[33] On top of this, there did not exist a poor person in America that Tocqueville encountered too poverty stricken to be unable to dream of riches. It seemed to him that, through the equality of democracy, even the poorest American citizen was able to pursue material well-being.

Material well-being has the most profound effect upon democratic faith. Through the constant pursuit of material well-being and the equality conditions under a democracy, Tocqueville argues that the citizens will become restless. This recklessness “also encourages a new form of belief in human perfectibility.”[34] Though the element of perfectibility has been around for a long time, it is because of the new social order, which democracy offers as equality, which makes it achievable for the average citizen. Tocqueville offers the alternative to democracy, aristocracy, but argues that it offers “complacency and resignation.”[35] Because of this democratic faith, according to Tocqueville, is “The political and social conditions resulting from the equality that undergirds ‘the dogma of the sovereignty of the people’”[36] Then; it is as a result of the pursuit of material well-being that democratic faith transforms from a divine object to something of humanity.

Changes religion must undergo

As a result of the relatively new form of government America has created, Tocqueville argues that religion must change in order to accompany politics. “I find that for religions to be able; humanly speaking, to maintain themselves in democratic centuries, they must not only confine themselves carefully o the sphere of religions matters; their power depends more on the nature of the beliefs they profess, the external forms they adopt, and the obligations they impose. “[37] Of religion he also writes “that one ought to retain only what is absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the dogma itself, which is the substance of religions, whereas worship is the only form.”[38] Tocqueville also touches upon this subject while speaking of Catholicism in that it is different than that of European Catholicism, because it “escaped the authority of the pope...”[39] Basically, Tocqueville approaches the divide between religion and politics, in the new form of American democracy, from the viewpoint that it is religion which must change in order to keep up with the politics.

Conclusion and Comparison

Both Niebuhr and Tocqueville agree on a variety of points. They both advocate measured equality, allowing that excessive individualism be kept in control while dismissing the notion of social control. Each of them believes that material prosperity provides a challenge to democracy and especially religion within democracy. Both scholars argue that democracy is a viable and successful form of governing and they each acknowledge the special role that religion plays when it comes to politics within democracy. However, it is here that the biggest contrast can be viewed from each of their works. Niebuhr advocates that government “must guide, direct, deflect and rechannel conflicting and competing forces in a community in the interest of a higher order.”[40] Tocqueville, on the other hand, believes that it is religion which needs to change in order that it functions best within society. Each scholar takes an opposing view when it comes down to how to make changes in a democracy, with Niebuhr arguing politics should change, while Tocqueville argues that it is religion which has, and should continue, changing. Each scholar believes in democratic faith, however, they have different ideas on how to act upon it.

Bibliography

Deneen, Patrick J. Democratic Faith. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government, Edited by C.B. Macpherson. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc, 1980.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1944.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

[1] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1944), 9.

[2] Ibid., 10.

[3] This passage found in the King James Version, accessed from www.biblegateway.com, is also quoted on the inside cover of Niebuhr’s book.

[4] Niebuhr, The Children of Light and Darkness, 11.

[5] Ibid., 10.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 70.

[8] Ibid., 77.

[9] Ibid., 60.

[10] Niebuhr, Children of Light and Darkness, 11.

[11] Ibid., 40.

[12] John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. C.B. Macpherson (Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1980) §99.

[13] Ibid., §15-16.

[14] Niebuhr, Children of Light and Darkness, 20.

[15] Ibid., 44.

[16] Ibid., 16.

[17] Ibid., 103.

[18] Ibid., 91.

[19] Ibid., 106

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 118.

[22] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Trans. Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 283

[23] Ibid., 284

[24] Ibid., 285

[25] Ibid., 502

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., 503

[29] Ibid., 281, 505 (to cite a few)

[30] Ibid., 505

[31] Ibid., 506

[32] Ibid., 507

[33] Ibid.

[34] Patrick J. Deneen, Democratic Faith, (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005), 222.

[35] Ibid., 223

[36] Ibid.

[37] Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 420.

[38] Ibid., 422

[39] Ibid., 275

[40] Niebuhr, Children of Light and Darkness, 44

Aristotle and his view of Friendship

2007-12-14T02:58:00.000-08:00

Aristotle wrote on a vast amount of subjects during his lifetime, such as biology, chemistry, physics, ethics and logic. In one of his most popular works, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses a variety of these subjects in order to find virtue and moral character. One of the virtues which Aristotle examines quite extensively is friendship. Aristotle believes that there are three different kinds of friendship; that of utility, friendship of pleasure, and virtuous friendship. Aristotle argues that friendship should be so highly valued because it is complete virtue and he explains that it is above both honour and justice. Aristotle’s theories regarding friendship break down into self-love, of which self-love of utility and self-love of pleasure become selfishness, while self-love of virtue is the highest good a person can achieve. Due to these three different kinds of love, human beings are shown to be quite political in nature. This is especially shown in the first two; love of utility and love of pleasure as Aristotle argues that humans set up relationships for each owns personal gain. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that virtuous friendship is one of the most glorious attainments one can achieve.

Aristotle describes a friendship of utility as shallow, “easily dissolved”[1] or for the old. He views them as such because this type of friendship is easily broken and based on something that is brought to the relationship by the other person. Aristotle uses the example of trade and argues that friendships of utility are often between opposite people, in order to maximize this trade.[2] A more realistic name for this type of friendship would be an acquaintance and could be described as the relationship between a person and their mailman. They greet each other, discuss the weather and other such petty talk, but when it comes down to it, there is no real relationship present. Aristotle believed that this is exactly why this type of friendship is for the old; Aristotle argued that they “...are at such a time of life pursue not what is pleasant but what is beneficial.”[3] Aristotle also believed that the young would pursue this type of friendship as they seek that which is advantageous to them and would not live with someone they are in this friendship with. This type of friendship is broken when, no matter how small, some part of the relationship changes and it is no longer beneficial to one or both of the individuals in the friendship. For example, say a person visits the same barber shop every month. However, a new barber shop has opened up and provides better service for a cheaper price. The friendship built between the barber and person getting their haircut will likely dissolve, as it is cheaper to use the services of the cheaper barber. Because of this, the friendship of utility has very weak bonds between the individuals in the relationship and in this aspect; it is quite similar to the friendship of pleasure.

Aristotle goes on to describe what he terms as the friendship of pleasure. This type of friendship is normally built between the young as passions and pleasures are great influences in their lives. This type of relationship is characterized by such feelings as passion between lovers, or the feeling of belonging among a likeminded group of friends. It differs from the friendship of utility in that those who seek utility friendships are looking for a business deal or a long term benefit, whereas the friendship of pleasure Aristotle describes is where one seeks something which is pleasant to them presently. [4] This sort of relationship is built on passion, which among the youth, is constantly changing. Like the friendship of utility, Aristotle views this type of relationship as fleeting and target of constant change. This is precisely why Aristotle argues that the young “...quickly become friends and quickly stop...” and “...love and stop loving quickly...”[5] Therefore, Aristotle views both friendship of utility and pleasure as unstable and constantly subject to abrupt change, which in fact dissolves the friendship, however; Aristotle moves on and begins discussing the truest form of friendship: that of virtue.

The highest form of friendship, Aristotle argues, is friendship of virtue. This type of friendship is based on a person wishing the best for their friends regardless of utility or pleasure. Aristotle calls it a “...complete sort of friendship between people who are good and alike in virtue...”[6] This type of friendship is long lasting and tough to obtain because these types of people are hard to come by and it takes a lot of work to have a complete virtuous friendship. Aristotle notes that there can not be a large amount of friends in a virtuous friendship because the amount of time and care that a virtuous friendship needs limits the amount of time one can spend with other friends. Aristotle argues that there are similarities between friendship of virtue and that of utility and pleasure, however; it is only the good that can endure in such a friendship. As Aristotle puts it, “it is clear that only the good can be friends for themselves, since the bad do not enjoy their own kind unless some benefit comes from them.”[7] Friendship of virtue is only felt among the good, between few amounts of people, is resistant to slander and is long lasting.

There are some who question why Aristotle has such a high view of friendship. Aristotle values friendship so highly that he argues friendship supersedes justice. Aristotle believes that no one would choose to live without friends.[8] Friendship, he argues, is necessary for life because no one would want to live without friends. He points to the fact that those who are rulers and have a great deal of power have a great need for friends. Aristotle views friendship as beautiful and the glue that holds cities together. To back this up, he discusses that those who are in power seem to take friendship more seriously than justice. Aristotle claimed that “friendship seems to hold cities together and lawmakers seem to take it more seriously than justice”[9] Not only did Aristotle argue that friendship was higher than justice; Aristotle argues that the love in friendship is higher than honour. In honour, people value being loved rather than loving. People who value honour will likely seek out either flattery or those who have more power than they do, in order that they may gain through these relationships. Aristotle believes that love is greater than this because it can be enjoyed as it is. “Being loved, however, people enjoy for its own sake, and for this reason it would seem it is something better than being honoured and that friendship is choiceworthy for its own sake.”[10] Aristotle believed that friendship, and the love which is a product of virtuous friendship, is greater than honour and justice and because of this, he proves why he prizes friendship so much.

Earlier in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued that human beings are political by nature. His discussion of friendship backs these points up and further affirms that humans are naturally inclined to practice politics. Take, for example, the friendship of utility, where a person creates a relationship purely for some sort of gain. This is quite often the relationship between different cities and states, as relationships are usually set-up though trade agreements or other treaties signifying a mutual benefit of some sort. However, most of the comparison between politics and friendship comes from the virtuous friend. It has been observed that a virtuous friend loves another for the sake of that person. This is the highest form of virtue; loving is better than being loved. Aristotle argued that it is this type of friendship that would hold cities together and no man can live a complete life without the benefit of friends. Virtuous friendships are very limited in number and it is the friendships of utility and pleasure that keep the city together, however; it takes the character of those in the virtuous friendship for a solid community to exist.

Aristotle clearly defines 3 different types of friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics. He describes friendship of utility as being focused on the products of a relationship and what the other person in the relationship serves. The friendship of pleasure us defined by Aristotle as friendship where a person loves someone for their charm. The similarities between these two are to do with the fact that they are both based on the products of the relationship, they both dissolve easily, and neither one leads to a complete friendship. Virtuous friendship, however, is described as complete and the ultimate form of love. This type of friendship happens between few people, is long lasting, and must be between people with a certain moral character. Those involved in virtuous friendships must be able to value loving over being loved and as such, their relationship will be based more around loving the other person and wanting what is good for them. It is through this type of friendship that we see why Aristotle values friendship so much. Aristotle argues that the only thing that should be valued higher than honour and justice is love, which is a product of virtuous friendship. As well, Aristotle believes that it is through friendship that cities are held together. Those with the moral virtue to enter virtuous relationships are a major part of this but friendships of utility and pleasure are also needed as friendships of virtue are severely limited in number. Communities are built around friendships, which are greater than honour and justice, but according to Aristotle, there must still be honour and justice within friendships.

Bibliography

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Joe Sachs. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing

[1] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Joe Sachs. (Newburyport, Focus Publishing, 2002) 1156a20.

[2] Ibid., 1159b12.

[3] Ibid., 1156a24-25.

[4] Ibid., 1156a30-35.

[5] Ibid., 1156b01-05.

[6] Ibid., 1156b07-08.

[7] Ibid., 1157a19-20

[8] Ibid., 1155a03-04.

[9] Ibid., 1155a23.

[10] Ibid., 1159a25-28

Alberta's Role in Canada

2007-11-30T03:15:00.000-08:00

Introduction

Since Alberta was established as a province in 1905, it has struggled with its identity in relating to the rest of Canada. Roger Gibbins describes the early immigration to Alberta as distinct and unlike traditional Canadian immigration; most of Alberta’s earliest settlers were Ukrainians, Swedes, Russians and others who did not understand French. These immigrants attempted to mould Alberta to their own political ideals which were quite different from those of the traditional French and British immigrants in the rest of Canada (2005). This different political ideology is evident in Alberta’s unique history of strong political parties, long standing governments, elements of populism and oppositional fragmentation. Even today Alberta is struggling with how to relate to the rest of Canada and what role it should take in the context of the country. There are three popular stances when it comes to Alberta’s role in Canada and the debate rages in regards to how Alberta should go about changing its role. One of the popular beliefs is that Alberta should separate from the rest of Canada. This ideology gained reputation during the National Energy Program crisis and has refused to die off. Another viewpoint has Alberta actively involved with the federal system. This perspective has Alberta getting more involved in the Federal government and actively establishing itself as an ally to the current centralized government in Ottawa. However; it is my position that Alberta should focus on the “Alberta Agenda” and begin implementing aspects of this agenda in order to best improve Alberta and its relationship to Canada.

The “Alberta Agenda” explained

The “Alberta Agenda” was initiated by an open letter titled “An open letter to Ralph Klein” (2001a) and was written by Stephen Harper and a few of his associates. In the letter, the authors describe several measures in which Alberta can begin to regain some control over its future. The first measure involves Alberta pulling out of the Canadian Pension Plan in favour of an Alberta Pension Plan. Alberta has the power to do this under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; due to the fact that pension plans are actually a provincial responsibility and legislation within the Canada Pension Plan permits the province to do this (Harper et al. 2001b). This is proven by the fact that the province of Quebec has run its own pension plan since it was first brought in and has worked to that provinces advantage. An Albertan Pension Plan would be able to charge only eight percent interest to return the same basic benefits the Canadian Pension Plan provides while charging ten percent (Byfield 2006). Such a plan could continue charging ten percent interest and make use of the two percent by returning it to the individual when they retire or move out of province (see Alberta Residents League, 2006 for more information).

The second measure outlined in the letter to the Premier involves Alberta collecting personal income tax, even though it is currently collected by the Federal government. The letter argues that the province already collects corporate income taxes and therefore, should collect the personal income tax. Alberta made the first move towards this measure as shown in the letter: “Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue” (Harper et al. 2001c). In allowing Alberta to claim its personal income taxes, a bureaucratic middleman, known as the Federal government, will be cut out of the picture. As well, the greatest gain for Alberta will be the ability to manipulate the tax to readily fit current trends of the Albertan economy, rather than wait and trust the Federal government to correct it.

The third measure describes the decommissioning of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as the official police force of the province, as their contract with Alberta expires in 2012. Ottawa and Quebec have both taken this step and currently operate their own provincial police squads. Alberta has plenty of time to prepare and cost examine such a measure and, as Harper et al. describe it; “(W)e have no doubt that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can...”(2001d). Again, the single greatest benefit of this move has to do with Alberta being able to control the entire provincial police force. In the event of terrorism towards the oil fields, which has been a threat of late, a provincial police force would be easier and better trained to deal with such individual aspects of provincial priorities.

The fourth example outlined in the open letter involves health care provision. The authors argue that the heath care system, as it is currently managed, is characterized by “long waiting periods and technological backwardness” (Harper et al. 2001e) and that Alberta would be able to manage the health care system much more efficiently. This is further backed up by a report titled “Provincial Prosperity” published by the Fraser institute which stated “...the problems are largely due to government ownership, control and regulation over the majority of the health and education sectors” (Clemens and Veldhuis, 2004a). Alberta, then, would be able to offer better health services, reduce waiting times, and improve technology within its own health care system while keeping costs approximately the same as what tax payers are currently spending. Health care is one of the most important issues among Canadian voters and the current state of disarray and backwardness is unacceptable, especially while the province has the ability to do something about it.

Finally, the fifth element described in the open letter to Ralph Klein discusses reformation of the senate. Currently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been attempting to pass a bill in the House of Commons which would set in motion the reformation of the Senate (see Ward 2007 for more details). Therefore, this paper will not need to address this particular issue as the Prime Minister has already set forth action.

Feasibility and Popularity

There are some who might begin to question the feasibility of these reforms and challenge them based on popularity. It is logical to assume that there would be a lot of federal opposition to these types of reforms, especially since they could begin a landslide effect on other provinces. However, this is not the case. The main author in the open letter to Ralph Klein is now the Prime Minister of Canada. Prime Minister Harper has worked hard to maintain an honest, trustworthy position and has portrayed his government as such. As proof of this, consider the recent GST tax cut of one percent. Given Canada’s current economy, the GST is one of the worst taxes to be scaling back (Chase, 2007). However, The Conservative government, as one of its many election promises, cut the GST back to five percent. Since this cannot be described as a sound financial position, it can only be interpreted as the government attempting to keep its promises. While this is quite noble, Alberta must use it to their advantage if they want reform. Harper does not want to be seen as a hypocrite, and with his name attached to the original “Alberta Agenda” document, his hands are tied if Alberta pushes the reforms described. Not only is it a sound decision to push these reforms nationally; Premier Stelmach has the opportunity to define his leadership using these reforms as his mandate.

Premier Ed Stelmach has been described as having an “abject lack of planning” (Taylor, 2007) and is often seen as having little mandate after taking over for Ralph Klein. These reforms could push Stelmach’s popularity and poll results through the roof. There are several articles which allude to the popularity of these reforms in Alberta. Premier Ralph Klein acknowledged that the “Alberta Agenda” had a great amount of popularity within his party and the province (Boessenkool, 2003; Fekete, 2007) and these types of reforms are constantly polled for support (Robbins SCE Research Inc, 2005). Given the popularity, current ability to push such reforms, and feasibility of implementing them; these issues should be forefront on the government of Alberta’s list of issues which need to be addressed.

Other Methods

As outlined in the introduction, there are a couple other options of which Alberta could choose to implement reform. The extreme position, held by a small amount of Albertans, is to separate Alberta from the rest of the country. They believe that in its current state, the best way of improving Alberta would be to form our own country and society. While there may be some initial economic benefits; as we would no longer need to pay equalization payments, the backlash of this decision far outweighs the positives. Consider the fact that world oil reserves are predicted to only last another forty years or so. This is the sole engine behind the economic train of Alberta and if another collapse were to occur, it would be the end of the country of Alberta instantly. It would make retiring in Vancouver, which would be an entirely different country, more difficult (Gibbins, July 2005a). Alberta would be extremely small in comparison with other countries within Canada. (Gibbins, July 2005b). Even Premier Lougheed, who was at constant odds with the federal government, claimed that “he was a Canadian through being an Albertan, that the two identities were two sides of the same coin” (Gibbins, July 2005c).

Along with being an unintelligent idea; it is extremely unpopular. In the 2001 election, the Alberta First Party received less than one percent of the popular vote (Makarenko, 2004) and a Robbins research poll, conducted in 2005, found that although sixty eight percent of Westerners feel the federal government isn’t doing a good job in providing fair treatment, seventy two percent would not want to separate. Yet another article proclaims that separation is a poor thought opinion, as “...successive opinion polls show that well under ten percent support the idea of an independent Alberta, or for that matter an independent West” (Gibbins, May 2005). Separation is the worst thing that Alberta could do as it would separate Albertans from one of its largest identities. Gibbins argues that “Despite ongoing problems, Canada has delivered a high level of material well being, personal security, and well-being” (July 2005d). Separating Alberta from such a large identity could prove fatal, in the long run; too much so for such a small country to survive.

The other method, which was also described in the introduction, involves Alberta stepping up and taking a lead role within the current system. This would be accomplished by hard work, economic prosperity, and using the current federal system to its fullest advantage. At first glance, this may seem like a terrific perspective to take and quite easily implemented; however, this is not the case. It is quite possible that, because Alberta is doing so well economically, the federal government may try to intervene into Alberta’s policies and decision making. This is a result of allowing the federal government to maintain a little bit of control over issues which should be solely within the provinces jurisdiction. There is definite reason for apprehension due to the federal governments “increasing incursions into provincial policy fields, incursions funded by growing federal surpluses, will squeeze out the available space for policy experimentation, creativity, and innovation in Alberta” (Gibbins, May 2005). This is equally a poor idea as separatism, as the more Alberta improves on the federal scale, the more tempted the federal government is going to take more liberties on provincial jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Alberta must take action on reforming its image in relation to the federal government. Since separatism and working within the current system have proven to be poor options; a third choice emerges. The “Alberta Agenda” produces some key issues in which Alberta needs to pursue in order to preserve its prosperity and drive. By acting on the four key principles of the “Alberta Agenda,” the province could ensure that it protects its rights and maintains control over key sectors in the province. By taking control of certain sectors, Alberta can gain an even better handle on the federal government involvement in provincial issues and stimulate the economy even more than it is currently. Given the current positions of two key politicians involved in these proposed reforms, Alberta must act quickly to take advantage and to maintain control. Once these reforms are met, there are limitless opportunities for improving Alberta and the province will flourish like it never has before. Acting immediately; Alberta would exceed expectations and propel the province to lead the charge into the future.

Bibliography

Alberta Residence League. “Alberta Pension Plan.” 2006. www.albertapensionplan.ca (Oct. 30, 2007)

Boessenkool, Ken. “Albertan’s are Moving Beyond Alienation.” 2003. National Post, November 18.

Byfield, Link. “Alberta Pension Plan Could Work.” 2006. Calgary Herald Editorial Page, October 21.

Chase, Steven. “Swelling Surplus Heightens Tax Cut Hopes.” 2007. Report on Buisness, Globe and Mail, October 27.

Clemens, Jason and Veldhuis, Niels. 2004. “Alberta’s Next Big Idea.” Fraser Forum, January. No. 21-26.

Fekete, Jason. “Stelmach will Fight for Alberta ‘Nation.’” 2006. Calgary Herald, December 05.

Gibbins, Roger. “The Rich Kid.” 2005. The Literary Review of Canada, May. No. 3-5.

Gibbins, Roger. “Better off in Canada.” 2005. Calgary Herald, July. D7.

Makarenko, Jay. 2004. 2004. Alberta General Elections. www. mapleleafweb.com/features/2004-alberta-general-election/?#seperation#seperation (October 30, 2007).

Harper, Stephen, Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton, Rainer Knopff, Andrew Crooks, Ken Boessenkool. “An Open Letter to Ralph Klein.” 2001. National Post, January 24.

Robbins SCE Research Inc. “Western Canadians believe Charter is for individual rights not group minority rights.” January 28, 2005

Taylor, Amy. “Stelmach Government Fails to Plan for a Sustainable Future.” 2007. The Pembina Institute, April 20.

Ward, John. “Tory senator seeks voter say on fate of the Red Chamber” 2007. Globe and Mail, October 24.

Book Comparison

2007-11-13T08:34:00.000-08:00

Religious Terrorism:
A comparison of Sayyid Qutb and Mark Juergensmeyer’s political and religious views
Ty Ludwig
11/8/2007

Recently, religious extremism has captured the world’s attention to the point that terrorism has become a worldwide phenomenon. Mark Juergensmeyer, author of Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, writes extensively about different religions and the recent rise of religious violence in the world today. He believes that the best solution to this recent increase in terrorism can be solved by “...secular authorities embracing moral values, including those associated with religion.”[1]Contrast this with one of the most influential Islamic writers of recent history, Sayyid Qutb. He is best known for his writings on social and political Islamist ideology. One of his most popular publications was entitled Milestones and was first published in 1964 as guide to keep Islam from extinction. Qutb outlines several steps in which Islam needs to follow in order to take the lead in a world where Western dominance is fading and, as Qutb exclaims, “It is essential for mankind to have new leadership!”[2] Qutb writes on three major aspects within Islam; while Juergensmeyer compares and contrasts terrorist acts and looks to find a common thread to these in order to learn more about terrorism. I believe that, especially in North America; Islam is portrayed as being the sole religion advocating terror. More specifically; I believe that there is a public perception that Muslims are the sole contributors to religious terrorism. Qutb’s ideas are often viewed as unique to militant Islam, however; Juergensmeyer proves that this is not the case. Further; Juergensmeyer provides concrete evidence to contradict Qutb’s sensationalist writings and proves that terrorism is mostly a symbolic gesture of a power struggle between religion and politics.

One major aspect of Qutb’s argument deals with the term “Jahiliyyah” or “jahili” which he uses to describe those who are ignorant of Islamic divine guidance.[3] Qutb has a very broad description for those he calls the “Jahiliyyah,” including those Muslims who claim to be pious but, in actuality, are not practicing their faith. He believes that a Muslim community can be defined as “...that which is a practical interpretation of the declaration of faith and all its characteristics; and the society which does not translate into practice this faith and its characteristics is not Muslim.”[4] Qutb uses the Qur’an extensively to build upon his definition of a Muslim community and eventually such a community could be summed up as based on the Qur’anic definition of a devout Muslim, where every action in a citizen’s life is “based on submission to God alone.”[5] With such a strict definition of what a Muslim and Muslim community is; Qutb goes on to describe the jahili society as “any society other than the Muslim society...”[6] Qutb claims that these societies do not submit to God and use the “sharia”[7] as legal law. As a result of his strict definition of a Muslim society, Qutb is forced to concede that “all the societies existing in the world today are jahili.”[8] It is necessary to establish a very precise definition of Jahiliyyah as to understand some of Qutb’s major themes within Milestones.

At this point, Qutb begins to establish guidelines for a Muslim community. He believes that the only way for Islam to become a true Muslim community, it must be organized as a nation.[9] This is due to the fact that a true Muslim community must establish the sharia (or, as Qutb uses, Shari'ah) as the legal law. Nations which are not true Muslim would not be able to fulfill this requirement so Qutb argues that a nation must be established. Qutb argues quite extensively about what is not to be considered a Muslim society and often quotes from the Qur’an to show that societies, such as Christian and Jewish, are at odds with Muslim views of God. Within Milestones, there is only one concrete chapter describing how to create this resurrected Islamic community. Curiously, this chapter is omitted in some online versions of the document, however; this chapter can be found in print, labelled as “The Islamic Concept and Culture.”[10] Within this chapter, Qutb explains that:

“...principles of their faith, the implications of the Islamic paradigm, the interpretation of the Qur’an, and hadith, the life history of the Prophet, the philosophy of history, the traditions of their community, the constitution of their government, the form of their politics, and similar branches of knowledge...”[11]

cannot be trusted to be taught but in a Muslim community. Qutb is constantly reminding the reader that God, as described in the Qur’an, is the entire basis for the Muslim community and Muslim’s should look no further than Allah to teach such subjects as faith, morals, economics, politics, values/standards, and the concept of life.[12] If these few guidelines are not adhered, the entire Muslim society will cease to exist as it will have been corrupted by jahili principles. Qutb argues that it will be very hard to keep jahili ideology from invading this true Muslim community and measures should be taken to establish and protect this society.

Now that Qutb has established exactly what it is to be Muslim and what it is to be Jahiliyyah, he begins to describe the approaches which should be taken to create a Muslim community and maintain it. The method he urges Muslims to use is called “jihad,” which is described as a two pronged approach: “preaching” and what Qutb describes as “the movement.”[13] Preaching, to Qutb, is simply not enough on its own. In order to bring the freedom to choose Islam as a religion, the Jahili system must be abolished as it “...prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord.”[14] Qutb claims that in order for any individual to be able to accept Islam as their religion, they must first be free to choose to convert and under Jahili ideology, it is impossible to do such. Therefore, Qutb concludes, “...it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission.” [15] Qutb takes great offence to those Muslims who read the Qur’an and see jihad as a “defensive approach” to dealing with attacks on Islam, and argues that this definition would only fit if defence were to mean “...the defence of man against all those elements which limit freedom.”[16] Qutb concludes that, because Islam is not simply a belief but rather a way of life; Muslims must ensure that they rise up to defend it. Islam is the religion of God, and because of this, it has the right to remove all obstacles that are in the way of freedom of choice.[17] Qutb claims that Islam does not attack individuals, but instead, “institutions and traditions.” This is to ensure that humans are released from “poisonous influences,” which distort the reality of true Islam.[18] Qutb’s ideas on jihad have inspired many Islamic terrorist factions as his interpretations clearly show not only the right to use force, but the obligation. This sort of ideology has lead to thousands of deaths and Qutb effectively declares war on all societies which do not accept sharia law as legal law, which is most of the countries in existence today.

These three elements are the dominant themes contained in Milestones and begin to develop how Muslims should go about developing a true Islamic community. Some may think that these viewpoints are solely that of militant Islam and Muslims’ are the only religion with radical theologians proclaiming death on seemingly innocent people. [19] However, I would contend that this is simply not the case. Mark Juergensmeyer makes a compelling case against this argument in Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. He would argue that terrorism and the ideologies contained in Qutb’s works are not unique to Islam and would further prove that these ideologies are not beneficial and do not work. Juergensmeyer shows that religious terrorism is spread across a great number of different religions and goes into great detail in the first six chapters of Terror in the Mind of God.

Juergensmeyer begins with Christian examples of terrorism and reminds readers that Christianity “has always had a violent side...”[20][21] More specifically; he discusses the bombings on abortion clinics in the United States by Reverend Michael Bray and his associates. Bray is a leader in the Defensive Action Movement, from which he “justifies the use of violence in anti-abortion activities...”[22] He has served a prison sentence from 1985-1989 for the destruction of seven abortion clinics in the Eastern United States and some of his known associates and friends have been convicted of the murder/attempted murder of abortion doctors. Bray claims that “Americans live in a situation comparable to Nazi Germany, a state of hidden warfare...”[23] and that it is his “right to defend innocent unborn children, even by use of force, whether it involves destroying the facilities that they are regularly killed in or taking the life of one who is murdering them.”[24] Bray views this ideology as defensive, his movements attempts to protect the unborn no matter the means in which it takes to be accomplished. These views are strikingly similar to Qutb’s ideas, especially that of “defence” and what actions are deemed permissive in achieving it.

Bray searches Christian theology for support, and claims to have found it in John Calvin’s ideas regarding “the necessity for presupposing the authority in all worldly matters.”[25] Bray and his followers believe in reconstruction[26] and reference the author Gary North for his ideology that “it is the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every institution for Jesus Christ.” As well; Bray and followers see Christians “as the newly chosen people of God, destined to dominate the world.”[27] Again, these ideas are strikingly familiar to Qutb’s writings and ideas found earlier in this paper. These examples are not limited to Protestantism, either, as Juergensmeyer describes with regards to the IRA and Sinn Fein later on in the chapter.

Finishing up with Christianity; Juergensmeyer moves onto Judaism and examples of Jewish activists. Like extremist Christianity and Islam, Judaism often turns to theological history for justification.[28] One of the major points for Jewish extremist contention focuses around the Dome of the Rock which is also reportedly the site of the ancient Jewish temple.[29] Juergensmeyer describes an event in which Yigal Amir assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin. According to militant rabbis during this period of time, “...such an assassination would be justified by the ‘pursuer’s decree’ of Jewish legal precedence.”[30] There are other justifications made for the assassination, however; the fact remains that according to Jews who believe in Messianic Zionism, killing one of your own religion because they are perceived as not pious or in direct conflict with God is justified. These ideas are not far off of Qutb’s when elaborating on who is considered a ‘true Muslim’ and who is considered ‘Jahiliyyah’. Juergensmeyer also describes another form of Jewish extremism, known as “catastrophic messianism,” to which it is believed that “Anything which humiliated the Jews was not only an embarrassment but retrograde motion in the world’s progress toward salvation.”[31] A man named Meir Kahane, who started the extremist group known as “the Jewish Defence League,” believes in the establishment of a religious Israeli state,[32] explanatory violence against a government which allows Jews to be killed[33], and justification of using force to accomplish “...religious goals.”[34] Comparisons can again be drawn to Sayyid Qutb, whose writings justifying similar points.

In addition to these examples of religious extremist violence; Juergensmeyer discusses Sikh, Islamic, and even Buddhist terrorism. He goes into great detail describing their individual religious views and justifications for violence but the trend remains the same. It soon becomes obvious that the description of violence and extremism that Qutb portrays in Milestones is not unique to Islam. Parallels can be drawn between Qutb and other extremist authors. One of the main themes which Juergensmeyer latches onto has to do with the fact that all of these examples of extremism see their cause as at war with the rest of the world. [35] Juergensmeyer shows that, historically speaking, these religious wars, viewed as ‘cosmic wars,’ are only won by the complete destruction of one of the factions.[36] So; Qutb’s ideas concerning Islam being at war against the Jahiliyyah must therefore conclude that, in the end, true Muslims will destroy all the jahili. However, this is not the case. While Qutb agrees that war must come to free man from the bonds of slavery to each other; he argues that once the bond of slavery is broken, men will be free to choose or reject Islam while living under sharia law.[37] This conflicts with Juergensmeyer’s ideology, as there would have to be a complete destruction of the jahili in order to have peace. The only people who would still have the choice as to accept or reject Islam would be those who are not ‘true Muslims,’ however; according to Juergensmeyer, they would have been destroyed in the cosmic war. This shows an inconsistency in Qutb’s writings, as Juergensmeyer relies on solid history to back his viewpoint up.

Yet another area in which Qutb’s ideology falls short has to do with the construction of the ‘true Muslim community’. Juergensmeyer points to Afghanistan as proof that, even when militant Islamic leaders take control, an Islamic state is impossible to set up. The Taliban, a radical Islamic group in Afghanistan, took control of government 1998. They returned the country a most conservative Islamic state, to the point where even women were not allowed to work. However; they “...never won the hearts of most Afghanis, including the traditional Muslim clergy.”[38] This is in direct conflict with Qutb’s ideology, which states that:

“When the number of Believers reaches three, then this faith tells them; ‘Now you are a community, a distinct Islamic community, distinct from that jahili society which does not live according to this belief or accept its basic premise.’ Now the Islamic society has come into existence (actually). These three individuals increase to ten, the ten to a hundred, the hundred to a thousand, and the thousand increase to twelve thousand-and the Islamic society grows and becomes established.”[39]

Afghanistan is a Muslim community and during the reign of the Taliban, according to Qutb’s theories, and Islamic state should have been set up. To further this point; when the United States military attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and toppled the Taliban, “it was clear that very few Afghani’s had risen to defend the Taliban regime. Even members of the Taliban’s own ethnic community, the Pushtoons, celebrated as if the country had been liberated from an evil oppressive rule.”[40] This, along with a few further examples Juergensmeyer provides proves that Qutb’s ideas of a ‘true Muslim society’ to be unattainable and crumbles Qutb’s further arguments.

Throughout the reading of Milestones, Qutb holds to the fact that once radical change is swept through and ‘true Muslims’ take control and steer the community away from the jahili, a true nation of Islam will begin to take root. Qutb claims that Muslims must rise up against the jahili governments and institutions so as to destroy their oppressive ways and create a freedom for all men, under sharia law. Juergensmeyer collapses these arguments by proving that a case where ‘true Muslims’ took power in Afghanistan and the Muslim population did exactly the opposite that Qutb expected. As well; Juergensmeyer argued that the war in which Qutb was rallying Muslims to fight could only be won by the complete destruction of the jahili. Juergensmeyer goes on to prove that they most efficient method for reconciling and quelling terrorism is for governments to take on aspects of religion, such as moral values. He describes several case studies in which terrorist activity has been quelled as a direct result of “...governments taking the high road, and upholding moral and civic values in responding to terrorism.”[41] This solution is in direct conflict with Qutb’s ideology but Juergensmeyer’s points have case studies[42] to back their credibility, whereas Qutb’s theory of complete sharia law has never come into existence. Juergensmeyer proves that terrorism is not limited to Islamic extremists while at the same time he takes apart Qutb’s arguments for a ‘true Muslim society.’

Bibliography

Ganor, Dr. Boaz. "The Islamic Jihad" The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (1995)

Articles [database on-line], accessed November 1, 2007.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California, 2003.

Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. (http://majalla.org/books/2005/qutb-nilestone.pdf)

Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. American Trust Publications, Revised edition, 1991.

[1] Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California, 2003), 19.

[2] Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, 1964, p. 2.

[3] Qutb, Milestones, 4.

[4] Ibid, 71.

[5] Ibid., 73.

[6] Ibid., 74.

[7] Encarta dictionary, North America Ed., s.v “sharia.”

[8] Qutb, Milestones, 75.

[9] Ibid., 3.

[10] Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, (American Trust Publications; Revised edition, 1991), 91-99.

[11] Ibid., 95-96.

[12] Ibid., 92

[13] Qutb, Milestones, 53.

[14] Ibid., 49

[15] Ibid., 51

[16] Ibid., 55.

[17] Ibid., 67.

[18] Ibid., 68.

[19] Dr. Boaz Ganor, "The Islamic Jihad – The Imperative of Holy War," The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, (1995), in Articles [database on-line], accessed November 1, 2007.

[20] Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, 19.

[21] See Chronicles I or II, or Samuel I or II, or Judges I or II for more information.

[22] Ibid., 21.

[23] Ibid., 23.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., 28.

[26] See Gary North and Gary Demar, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't (Institute for Christian Economics 1991), for more information on Christian Reconstruction

[27] Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, 28.

[28] Ibid., 46.

[29] Ibid., 47.

[30] Ibid., 49.

[31] Ibid., 55.

[32] Ibid., 56.

[33] Ibid., 58.

[34] Ibid., 57.

[35] Ibid., 150.

[36] Ibid., 220.

[37] Qutb, Milestones, 54

[38] Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, 224.

[39] Qutb, Milestones, 98-99

[40] Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, 224

[41] Ibid., 244

[42] Ibid.

Alberta Politics

2007-10-15T10:32:00.000-07:00

There are 4 known political party "systems" which have dominated Alberta's political history. It began with the Liberals of 1905-1921. Then the UFA came out of nowhere to beat the Liberals and held on for the next 3 elections. Mired in a sex scandal, Premier John Brownlee resigned in 1934 and consequently, in the 1935 election, the UFA were completely dominated by the Social Credit party. Aberhart led the Social Creds for 2 elections before he died, which was arguably the most beneficial thing for the party. In 1943 Ernest Manning took the helm and held on until 1968 when he stepped down. Consequently Harry Strom took over and was annihilated by Peter Lougheed in the 1971 election. Lougheed held onto power until 1985 when Don Getty took over as Premier. The Conservatives were looking very weak going into the 1993 election (Getty had resigned and Klein was elected leader) but Klein took a majority and never looked back. Now, Premier Ed Stelmach has taken the lead and set up an interesting scenario.
-Will Ed Stelmach turn out to be like Don Getty, a transitional leader who held on while a populist styled leader turned up (Klein)?
-Will Ed Stelmach turn out to be like Harry Strom, a victim of a long governed party to which a viable alternative showed up in the form of Peter Lougheed?

I would argue that Ed Stelmach is going to be a Don Getty type leader. The Alberta Liberal party is NOT a viable alternative and the NDP has never and will never be. Unlike Harry Strom, there is no viable right-winged alternative party in Alberta and even if there were, it would have to have a populist-type leader before it became a viable option for Albertans.

However, this is the prime time for a strong push for a party such as the Alberta Alliance party to make a push to become the ruling party in Alberta. If they were to elect a personable leader who genuinely offers an alternative Conservative option to Albertans, history would predict that they have a chance to take a majority government. People are fed up with the Conservatives but faced with no alternative, will keep voting them into power.

The question then becomes: What will happen first? A viable alternative to the Conservatives or a populist leader emerging in the Conservative party? Only time will tell...