Revolution By Constituency
I know 2 leaders of organizations who wish to transform Canadian society economically and democratically by building decentralized communities of like-minded, concerned and engaged citizens.
I was confused.
The word ‘constituency’ has a very specific meaning to me. It suggests a group of people who share ‘common cause’ and priorities, and are prepared to work together to achieve them. In politics, constituency is understood as the cohort of citizens who live within an electoral riding for whom an elected official can claim to represent them regarding the creation and enforcement of government policy.
These two leaders both believe that creating a constituency is enough to bring about real change in society and the economy.
I do not believe this to be enough to bring about enduring changes that they hope to achieve.
‘constituency’ defined
noun [ C ]
one of the official areas of a country that elects someone to represent it in a parliament or legislature:
the people who live and can vote in a particular area:
He angered his constituency by voting against the bill.
a group of people who support, or are likely to support, a particular person, product, suggestion, etc. :
There is a large constituency in favour of income-tax reductions.
A great discussion.
In a lengthy conversation with one of these leaders a few days ago, he expressed his goal to build a nationwide “constituency” (his term) that would consist of local groups of small business owners that reside within each of the 338 federal electoral ridings across Canada.
Each local group would come together voluntarily under a common set of principles and their shared economic interests as business owners.
The defined set of seven ethical principles would serve as a collective umbrella under which the participants may pursue a HIGHER PURPOSE: to improve the productivity, health and prosperity of Canada’s businesses and citizens.
Since that meeting…
I have reflected on his use on the word ‘constituency’’ . I believe that he sees his role as the builder of a nation wide NETWORK of business owners. This network would be comprised of 338 local groups each retaining the autonomy and authority to plan and act in accordance with the interests of each local group’s members.
While he was adamant that his national ‘constituency’ would have no political affiliation, each local group would be free to make their own autonomous decisions regarding political action as long as they were guided by the shared principles established by him as the national ‘constituency” founder.
Both leaders have similar ideas and goals.
The other group leader was not in attendance at this recent lunch meeting, but it is worth comparing the missions and plans of both leaders. The goal of 338 local “councils”, guided by a defined set of prescribed principles, is the same. Where they differ, however, is in the nature of constituencies they seek to build.
One leader is focussed on small business owners and their dependents (family, employees, suppliers, customers). He hopes that this cohort, operating under his prescribed principles, will become a successful force in move Canada’s social and economic culture towards his ends. I suppose you could make the analogy of his vision to that of a nationwide religious organization which presents the scriptures for the national enterprise while expecting each parish to serve the unique needs of the local congregation. It’s a model that has worked successfully for eons.
The other leader has inspired thousands of Canadians to rally around his vision for a civil society. It was inspired by Canada’s national truckers’ protests which took place in the Winter of 2022. Hundreds of “freedom groups” have subsequently self-assembled to sustain the spirit and purpose of that protest across the nation.
It’s all about principles.
Sadly lacking on modern politics and public governance are a consistent and respected set of rules and values that are widely accepted as fundamental to the formation and sustenance of a democratic civil society under which every individual and business can thrive in confidence.
Each leader offers a difference set of guiding principles. .
A Statement of Principles defining ‘the rights of persons and the duties of government’ is the central product of one group.
Seven Economic Rights forms the basis of the other.
Both are intended to heal the many blemishes that dot the face of contemporary Canadian society. Failures of governments at every level are commonly identified as the root cause of those blemishes. Each leader has made it his mission to become the “Clearasil” to cure the blemish outbreaks.
Constituency Synonyms.
As stated earlier, the word ‘constituency’ had left me confused after the lunch meeting. I assumed that the word was being used in the context of politics, but my host made it clear that his constituency would have no political affiliation. This restriction was shared by both leaders and I was perplexed by their adamant decision for several reasons:
The root causes of the many societal and economic blemishes that they identify have arisen from past and present governments. The zits arise from the thousands of laws and regulations resulting from innumerable decisions made by elected “law-makers” in Parliament and our provincial legislative assemblies, and unelected bureaucrats. I wondered how these 2 leaders hoped to address the roots of these problems without engaging in the spheres of politics, public policy and the authoritarian held by the many and massive regulatory enforcement institutions.
Every ‘special interest group’ (SIG) is a ‘constituency’. There are many. Each exerts a unique type of influence on the role that governments play in Canadian life. The LEGAL SYSTEM is an example of a very powerful SIG because every lawyer, judge, law clerk and police officer depends on the complexity of laws and regulations to keep them employed. ACCOUNTANTS likewise owe their employment and job security to a highly complex taxation and regulatory system. The constituents of each SIG can be counted upon to protect their vested self-interests. Every politician knows this and acts accordingly. Both constituencies have governing bodies that protect the interests of their licensed professionals and use their licensing powers to ensure obedience to their selfish interests. PUBLIC SECTOR LABOUR UNIONS comprise another major SIG. Many laws and regulatory bureaus exists today to underpin the power and authority of those organized labour constituencies.
A new understanding.
While I initially failed to appreciate their visions, I now think that both leaders secretly hope that, from within their nationwide organizations, a POLITICAL BATTERING RAMS - a SIG - a NATIONAL CONSTITUENCY will promote their principles until they are infused in Canadian culture.
It’s very likely that each group will enter the national and regional political arenas at some level. This is inevitable. Significant and lasting change can only come by repealing many of the excessive laws and regulations that have enabled the many SIGs to game government powers to their advantage. Repealing those excesses is the only legal and peaceful way forward.
The elephant.
I am reminded of the story of three blind men who encounter an elephant and are asked to describe it using their sense of touch. The first touched the trunk, the second a leg and the third the tail.
The government sector is the elephant. Every “freedom group” and “constituency-building enterprise” are like the blind men trying to understand the elephant.
Many participants in these groups have asked openly why a single SUPER CONSTITUENCY with shared common purpose has not yet emerged from the many “concerned citizens’” groups that meet regularly over Zoom.
Elephant-sized favouritism.
Today’s laws and regulatory agencies are the by-product of, and the scaffolding for, sustaining the state-conferred privileges currently enjoyed by the many special interest groups. These SIGs have built the necessary critical mass of followers, money and influence required to succeed in capturing a controlling stake in the political power establishments that fund and direct everything.
Canadian business legend Frank Stronach is an immigrant who founded and built one of the world’s greatest success stories in automotive manufacturing sector. He started it in a rented garage as a one man tool and die business in 1954. Does anyone today believe that his story of success could be replicated in 2024? NO! The stifling impact of the tax and regulatory baggage would stop him in his tracks!
The elephant today is not friendly to business entrepreneurs.
How can any Canadian, immigrant or otherwise, become the next “Frank Stronach” under such oppressive conditions?
Skeptical Clouds are Clearing.
These two leaders are continuing to build out their nationwide constituencies without a political alliance.
In the last few days, I see their wisdom in avoiding any explicit association of their enterprises with any political brand, ideology or party. Doing so would place them at risk from a raging bull elephant!
Canada’s Cabals of Political Power
The only parties that have ever presided over a majority Parliament in Canada are the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Minority governments have depended on the second-string support of the NDP and Bloc Québécois.
These four parties comprise the Political Power Cabal in Canada - the head of the elephant.
Smaller parties don’t stand a chance against the elephant.
As a past Libertarian and PPC candidate in ten elections, I have experienced the might of the Political Power Cabal first hand in both federal and Ontario elections. Few Canadians are aware that 16 parties are registered in a typical federal election and 23 in Ontario provincial elections. This is by design by the power brokers behind the federal and provincial Cabals.
Both leaders are wise to avoid declaring support for a specific political party. It’s a “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t proposition.
If they aligned with a small party like the PPC and Libertarian, they would never gain access to be powers of a major government. If they align with one of the Cabal, they can expect to be ignored by the ruling elites who must contend with hundreds of SIG lobbyists all vying for attention.
Besides, it would inevitably expose them and their organizations to the kind of divisive cat fights and media bashing that always comes with declared or inferred political associations.
In addition, it’s dangerous. Sometimes attempts at character assassination can be the consequence of speaking too freely in opposition to the interests of the wrong people.
Local Autonomy is the key.
There is nothing to stop the members of any one or bunch of the 338 local groups to adapt their “common cause” to include a political plan or strategy that will support their local interests.
The decisions of these group members need not reflect on the founders of these national organizations who wish to avoid political slights and arrows. What happens locally will remain local.
Public Health
I have been working with a third group that consists of hundreds of medical, research and public health professionals. This volunteer organization exists to teach, inform and engage every Canadian to help them make the best possible health and lifestyle decisions for themselves and their families.
Like the other aforementioned enterprises, this organization avoids political pigeon-holing by the media. Their leaders also understand the dangers within Canada’s hyper-partisan media and cultural landscape. They focus only on encouraging followers and the broader public to be well-formed for their own well-being and in support of sound public policies.
Unfortunately, competition in the medical sector is severely limited to favour government-controlled and tax-funded medical monopolies. This fact leaves few citizens with the option to “vote with their pocketbook” to patronize their best option of a range of free market service providers.
I also wonder if this group will spawn political action from individuals within its community to challenge the way medical services are delivered today. As a government monopoly , the Medical Sector certainly suffers from the same problems that inspired Canada’s Anti-trust Laws to curtail monopolies in the non-government sectors of the economy.
Similarities and Differences.
The “business models” and goals for these three groups are similar and aligned in many respects.
As someone at the intersection of these three groups, I observe CONSILIENCE possibilities if all three could somehow find cause to share a much broader and more inclusive constituency.
The Trouble with Canada, published decades ago by my former boss, was the story of how too many self-serving constituencies (SIGs) had been built up over several generations to form a powerful, controlling, expensive and ubiquitous regime of oppression. Big governments were “sold” to gullible Canadians as the source of “free“ public services based on the benign-sounding promise of “the just society”. Today, our citizens and business enterprises carry the burden of its reality.
References.
If you haven’t yet discovered the following groups, I encourage you to look them up and get involved.
The Stronach Foundation for Economic Rights, www.economiccharter.ca
Civis4Reform, www.civis4reform.org
Canadian Citizens Care Alliance, www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org
