A new Direct Democracy Party for Canada?

I argue that we don’t need a new political party to fight for the right to govern. Instead, we need a means to shift Canada’s political paradigm at the level of the average elector.

Direct Democracy Party of Canada.

A group of Canadians, who are fed up with their current federal political options, are working to create a new party that reflects their values and vision for an acceptable form of social and economic governance for all Canadians.

A fundamental question to be answered is:

What specifically do they mean by “direct democracy” and how do they conceive of its implementation?

So far, I have only seen the outline of an election platform which appears to be a grab bag of popular notions about the failings of our current political systems and what conceptually can be done about them. Of course, “the devil is in the details” and so far the details are absent. I guess we will learn them in time as the organization matures.

I asked ChatGPT to define ‘direct democracy’.

It replied:

According to the Oxford Dictionary, direct democracy is a form of government in which policies and laws are decided by a majority of all those eligible rather than by a body of elected representatives 1. It is also defined as a state governed under a system of direct democracy 1.

In direct democracy, the people decide on policies without any intermediary or representative, whereas in a representative democracy people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives 2. Direct democracies may operate through an assembly of citizens or by means of referenda and initiatives in which citizens vote on issues instead of for candidates or parties 3.

The most important historical reference of direct democracy is to assembly democracy in ancient Greek city-states, particularly Athens, where decisions were taken by an Assembly (Ecclesia) of some 1,000 male citizens. Later, people’s assemblies were used in many Swiss cantons and towns as well as in town meetings in some American colonies and states. Early U.S. states also started using procedures in which constitutions or constitutional amendments were ratified by referenda, which later became common in the country 3.

Direct democracy can enable people to vote on important issues that may not be addressed by representative party politics 2. However, it is not without its challenges. Direct democracy can be cumbersome and time-consuming, and it can be difficult to ensure that all voices are heard equally 2.“

Comments .

In ancient times, city states were the dominant form of community living. Populations were small relative to modern cities and contained within walking and horseback travel distances. Communications technology was mainly ‘word of mouth’,

In modern times, none of the above applies.

The idea that citizens can determine the who, how and what of social and economic governance now rests with the bones of the Greek and Roman citizens of yore. All attempts to re-create the nostalgic spirit of direct democracy have failed along with many other governance models that have been promoted over the centuries.

The Competition.

Sixteen federal parties are currently registered with Elections Canada. Next to that list are 29 defunct parties that existed in the past.

Two (LIB and CON) have dominated in the winners circle of every federal election with two others (NDP, BQ) have managed to elect enough MPs to exert significant political influence on the majority of Parliamentarians who have been delegated the governing powers by the electorate .

This POLITICAL POWER OLIGOPOLY of CANADA (PPOC) is unlikely to be toppled anytime soon.

PPOC is a fortress of hegemony that has been built on a mountain of legislation and funded by Canada’s political elites over many generations. It is all but unassailable.

Anyone who believes that a new political party can scale that fortresses greasy walls to defeat its incumbents is dreaming in technology.

A better alternative

By all means create a new political organization and even enter it’s candidates in federal elections, but don’t pretend that it has any chance of forming a government. Canada’s electorate and media will treat such a claim as delusional. The PPC’s lack of electoral success it a testament to the next-to-impossible prospect of defeating the PPOC.

Instead, form a community of advocates to spearhead a grass roots (“populist?”) political revolution based on a direct democracy vision. Field candidates in every election to promote that vision in order to teach and inspire in our citizens that there is a better governance model for Canada. Show them how this vision, if fulfilled, can provide them with a more direct say to defend themselves against the autocratic policies and taxes that directly impact their lives.

Convince every voter in every election that they consider a vote for Direct Democracy as the equivalent of a referendum vote on Canada’s current model of governance. These votes will be counted and, over time, every additional vote for a Direct Democracy Advocate on every ballot will tell Canadians that the political tide is changing in Canada. The concrete evidence will be the growing vote tally for Direct Democracy Advocates listed in all 338 ridings across Canada.

Only the Canadian voter can shift the tide. I suggest that the Direct Democracy Party of Canada be renamed as the Direct Democracy Advocates of Canada and plan to transform Canada’s political culture and landscape in bottom up activism at the level of every community across Canada.

My vision as an Advocate for Less Government.

A civil society will feature four primary characteristics. These were first identified as principles and introduced to Canada’s political culture by Maxime Bernier when he formed the People’s Party of Canada. These values belong to everyone regardless of party affiliation.

The FOUR PRINCIPLES FOR A CIVIL SOCIETY should guide all governing institutions when creating and enforcing rules for society and/or approaches to governing democratically.

FIRST, citizens must be free to undertake PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in all their affairs, to be limited only by situations in which their choices and acts may encroach upon the same rights as others.

Given that our churches and institutions of public Education all serve to condition and prepare every child to grow up to become a responsible adult, society at large has tacitly agreed for many generations that personal responsibility is a worthy goal towards which to aspire for every Canadian citizen.

SECOND, personal responsibility cannot be undertaken if citizens are not individually free to make informed choices. To the extent that governments create strict rules to be enforced under their exclusive authority, that INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM continually erodes.

Our governing institutions much be reduced and limited in size, cost and scope of legislative authority in order to establish the optimum balance between individual freedom and state control.

THIRD, rules must be FAIR. All affected parties (i.e. stakeholders such as citizens, business owners and representatives of institutions) meet as “equals” in the application of rules (laws and bylaws, regulations of all types) and ‘best practices’ for the benefit of individual citizens as well as their community members.

Too many laws and regulations exist today that were enacted to benefit one special interest group or another at some point in the past. Often, they were created whenever a public issue arose which spurred partisan lobbyists to take political action. Once passed, any resulting statutes usually remain on the books indefinitely. As they grow in number and scope of authority, the spirit of autocracy begins to prevail under the supreme powers of “the state”. This trend is unacceptable to any advocate of genuine democracy.

FOURTH, unelected public officials and elected politicians expect RESPECT from the electorate while they hold their positions of authority in office.

While it may make sense to respect the public office for the powers it wields, respect for its inhabitant must be earned.

For example, I respect the office of the Canadian Prime Minister but not its current inhabitant. I reserve this personal assessment and judgment for every government department head, MP, MPP, Mayor and City Councillor according to their performance and stated objectives.

A Charter is needed

Small groups of people can manage themselves without formal structures but there comes a time on the life of every growing organization that structure becomes necessary to operate effectively and be accepted as legitimate by “the powers that be”.

A Direct Democracy Advocates of Canada (DDAC) should convene a leadership workshop to begin to shape the Vision, Purpose, and Principles that will comprise the first iteration of the Charter. It will be the best marketing tool that you have to draw potential members and donors to the DDAC.

If invited, I will participate in the workshop.