,One of the things we try to do at Democracy Alert is highlight interesting books and reports that address growing inequality and the lack of democratic push-back. If you check out our resource section you will see Coles Notes type summaries, in point form, of Thomas Piketty’s Capitalism in the 21st Century, Wendy Brown’s Undoing the Demos, Colin Crouch’s Post Democracy and Guy Standing’s The Precariat, the new emerging class. 

These authors convincingly document the negative impact of the neoliberal policies of the last 40 years. What has been missing so far, however, is an analysis of the flawed thinking behind neoliberal economics. Two recently published books fill that gap.

J is for Junk Economics, by American economist Michael Hudson, demonstrates how modern economists deliberately put meaning into economic words that actually mean the opposite of their historical roots. The parallels with the Doublethink of Orwell’s 1984 are obvious.

This is a great book for unravelling the gobbledygook of economic terminology and showing how it has artificially fettered and distorted economic debate and discussion. Because it’s written in the form of an A to Z dictionary of prevailing economic terminology, we haven’t yet figured out how to summarize the book.  However, you can learn more about Michael Hudson’s ideas at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM0_7PVuVVg

The second book, Can we avoid another financial crisis?, is by Australian economist, Steve Keen. Keen was one of the very few economists worldwide to anticipate the Great Financial Crisis of 2008. He argues that another financial crisis is inevitable, given the instability of our current economic system and identifies the five countries that will probably be the hardest hit. Canada is one of them.
​
Can we avoid another financial crisis? is an excellent start for anyone who wants to understand the true nature of the global economic system. For a brief overview of Steve Keen’s analysis click here.

  We put a letter in the Telegram today, expressing our disappointment with the Trudeau government's use of the whip in a House vote on May 31st.  That vote asked MPs to  accept the recommendations of the Electoral Reform Committee and hold a referendum on proportional representation.    Only two brave Liberal MPs, one in Toronto and one in PEI chose to defy the whip. 

​Here's what we said in our letter.
.................

We need a different proportional representation strategy.

Back in 2015, Justin Trudeau repeatedly promised voters that if the Liberals became the next government, 2015 would be the last first-past-the-post election. He also promised that the party whip would only be used by a Liberal government to deal with confidence matters and implementing campaign promises.

Two weeks ago, the Liberal Party of Canada used the whip to defeat a motion in the House of Commons to accept the recommendations of the parliamentary electoral reform committee and hold a referendum on proportional representation. This effectively put an end to attempts to keep electoral reform alive federally.

This was disturbing, not just because of the broken promises, but because the thwarting of the electoral reform committee’s recommendation was done by a party that has been elected as a majority government by only 39.5 per cent of voters.

That couldn’t happen under a proportional representation system, where the percentage of seats each party gets matches the percentage of votes they receive. Designed to prevent any government with less than 50 per cent of the votes from acting with absolute power, proportional representation leads to more coalition governments and the potential for small parties to wrestle concessions and compromises from government.

That’s precisely what the Liberal party doesn’t want. They argue that proportional representation will lead to frequent elections, uncooperative parliaments where nothing gets done, and the rise of extremist parties.

None of this is valid. Over the last 50 years, Canada has actually held more elections than most European countries where proportional representation is the norm. In mainland Europe, unlike here, Pharmacare and government-subsidized daycare programs are also the norm. Workers’ benefits and rights are stronger and there are better environmental regulations. The result is that there is less inequality in Europe than in Canada.

As to the risk of political extremism, my European friends point out that Donald Trump would never have been elected under a proportional representation system because he didn’t win the popular vote. Nor would the Harper government have been able to pass all its unpopular legislation.
If we are going to develop a momentum for change, it will only happen if ordinary people step forward to promote it.

The Liberal government’s defeat of the electoral reform motion last month now transfers any hopes for implementing proportional representation back to the provinces, with British Columbia being the province to watch.

But what about here in Newfoundland and Labrador? In the 2015 provincial election, in spite of being in the midst of a gigantic economic crisis, voter turnout was apparently the lowest of any province since Confederation. That’s a huge comment on people’s dissatisfaction with our political choices.

We need transformative change. Three local groups — Democracy Alert, the Council of Canadians and the Social Justice Co-operative — believe electoral reform is a good place to start. We would like to see a thorough debate on the merits of proportional representation, followed by a referendum, ideally attached to an election.

Our referendum question is simple. Let voters decide whether or not they want to change to an electoral system that follows the principles of proportional representation. If a majority of voters choose change, it would be the responsibility of our elected representatives, through an all-party committee, to select a specific proportional representation system. This would then be implemented for the following election.

Notice that our referendum question is not tied to a specific proportional representation system. Why? There are actually more than 40 different proportional representation options to choose from. In our opinion, it’s a mistake to precipitously commit to a particular system simply because other provinces have favoured them in their referendums. Let’s take our time and choose the best system for our province and let’s do it in a deliberative, unbiased and collaborative way.

Proportional representation is not a radical option, in spite of what the Liberal party would like us to believe. More than 90 countries now use some form of proportional representation. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have also gone that route. Why, then, not us?

If you want to learn more about proportional representation, N.L. style, there’s information at DemocracyAlert.ca. And please consider joining us. If we are going to develop a momentum for change, it will only happen if ordinary people step forward to promote it. Where better place to look for support than with Telegram readers?

Democracy Alert is transitioning.

For three years we directed our attention to education based initiatives.  Our primary focus was on the Newfoundland and Labrador senior high school social studies curriculum, which for almost 20 years was devoid of any courses that gave students the opportunity to talk about governance, democracy, world problems and political economy. The consequence, not surprisingly, was the lowest voter turnout of any of the 10 provinces both at the federal and provincial level. 

There is good news however. Our understanding is that the NL Department of Education has agreed with our concerns and there will be changes. We look forward to seeing them.

Why are we are now choosing to focus on electoral reform?

We’ve concluded that our current electoral system is incapable of addressing three alarming trends  -  growing inequality, growing corporate dominance of government decision making, and growing public disinterest in democratic participation. One way of addressing this is by changing the way we elect governments.

We would like to see a transition to a proportional representation (PR) system -  an electoral system that achieves two important outcomes. Proportional representation gives small parties and the diverse opinions they represent fairer representation in government. It also prevents any party with less than 50% of the popular vote from forming a single party majority government. Check out our five part video series for an explanation of how that can benefit ordinary citizens.

Our approach differs from that of other groups advocating for proportional representation in two significant ways. We have a different referendum question. We also believe that, if we are to interest the public in proportional representation, we need to focus more on the achievements of proportional representation countries rather than the disadvantages of our first-past-the-post system.

Our Referendum Question

We want a referendum question attached to our provincial election (ideally the next one) that would present voters with the following choice:

       ________  I would like to continue with our current system for electing MHAs to the House of Assembly
       ________  I would like to change to a proportional representation system for electing MHAs.

Alternatively the referendum question might be stated as:

     I want to change to a proportional representation system for electing MHAs to the House of Assembly.

      __________  Yes
      __________   No

Should voters choose proportional representation, the incoming government would use their term in office to research and select the proportional representation system best suited to Newfoundland and Labrador’s unique demography.  We recommend that that process be done through an all-party committee commissioned to seek input from civil society.

Why do we prefer this referendum question to one tied to a specific PR system like Mixed Member Proportional or Single Transferable Vote?   We believe that proportional representation gets defeated, or gets lukewarm acceptance, not based on its intent but on its mechanics. Understanding the concept of matching the number of seats a party receives in the House with the votes the party receives is easy.  People like that idea. But what is complicated and confusing is trying to understand how that proportionality is achieved.  People don’t like being confused and so they vote for the status quo.  

Simplifying the referendum questions would allow citizens to vote for or against proportional representation according to its merits rather than it mechanics.  But, there is another reason for not immediately choosing a particular proportional representation system.  Did you know that there are more than 40 different PR systems in the world?  We need to take our time and select the system that best suits our needs  and values from all the choices out there.

Spreading the proportional representation message

We  believe that if voters saw the benefits that proportional representation has brought to European countries there would be a drive to change our electoral system. Our challenge is to get that message out to people  across our province. 

How do we do that? We are not sure. We are looking for ideas and we are looking for volunteers. So, if proportional representation is something that you, too, believe in, please consider joining us. 

We can be reached at democracyalert.nl@gmail.com.
 
 
 

On May 10th (7 p.m.) Democracy Alert, along  with the Social Justice Cooperative and the St. John's chapter of the Council of Canadians will be launching our ideas for electoral reform at a public session at St. Augustine's Church on Westerland Rd. in St. John's.  

For a preview of our novel referendum concept, read the article below published in the Hill Times today.  The author is Helen Forsey, author of  "A People's Senate for Canada – Not a Pipe Dream."

This is good news as it means that many MPs across the country will now learn of, and hopefully consider, "a realistic way forward" for electoral reform.

​Our thanks go to Helen!
 

                               Electoral Reform – A Realistic Way Forward
                                       published in the Hill Times, May 1st, 2017
   
 
            In the three months since Prime Minister Trudeau's about-face on electoral reform, real change in our voting system has begun to feel like a lost cause. A vigorous and high-profile public discussion got pushed back into the shadows, and now, even with Nathan Cullen's upcoming motion in the Commons, the prospects for breathing life back into the issue seem dim. The hitherto fluid and hopeful "how-to" discourse has morphed into a battle where the various players – organizations and political parties alike – are dug into their own particular positions and unwilling to lose face. There might appear to be no way out.
 
            Ah, but there is. Led by Democracy Alert in St. John's, Newfoundland, several groups are putting forward an idea that has benefits for all sides. Their proposal? Attach a referendum question to the 2019 election posing a simple choice between a) keeping the present system, or, b) moving to a more proportional one. Then, if the referendum favours proportional representation, the incoming government would complete the process of selecting the best system and putting it in place for the following election.
 
            One of the recurring problems of electoral reform efforts to date has been the complex mechanics of the different systems of proportional representation being considered. As Democracy Alert's Marilyn Reid explains, that complexity can confuse the issue and discourage people. A simplified referendum asking voters to choose or reject PR based on its merits rather than its mechanics would enable citizens to argue the real pros and cons of change versus the status quo before deciding to adopt a particular system.
 
            A quick recap of where we're at right now. After spectacularly reversing their commitment to ending the distortions and false majorities of first-past-the-post elections, Mr. Trudeau and his ministers trotted out every possible excuse to justify keeping the very system they had formerly denounced. Electoral reform has since been fading from the headlines, in accordance with the government's efforts to consign it to oblivion. But the grassroots citizens' movement is not about to give up. After months of tangible progress towards their goal of proportional representation, the most vocal reform organizations continue to demand that the Liberals' fulfil their original promise – a new system in place for the 2019 trip to the polls.
 
            Unfortunately, that 2019 deadline now constitutes an obstacle to its own goal. In order to jump through all the procedural hoops required to implement such a change in time for the next election, legislation would have to be developed and passed in double-quick time. But hasty legislation has an alarming record of being counter-productive, especially on complex and controversial issues. Moreover, as the official Opposition has pointed out, changing the system without explicitly asking Canadian voters whether or not they want change suggests a lack of respect for democratic principles.
 
            At this point, then, the 2019 implementation deadline is simply not a good idea for either supporters or opponents of proportional representation, or for the undecided. The timeline should be adjusted.
 
            But that's adjusted, not abandoned. Contrary to the government's assertions, the Special Committee on Electoral Reform last year did find broad consensus across the country for a move to greater proportionality – that is, election results that reflect approximately the popular vote. What they did not find in the short time available was a specific system that they could unreservedly recommend.
 
            There are many potentially viable forms such a system could take, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Given the complexities and the time involved, the next step is not to decide on a particular model, but to have voters make the crucial choice between keeping first-past-the-post or moving to a more proportional system.
 
            For those who like the prospect of electoral reform, this proposal would provide the opportunity to move the matter forward. For those who favour the status quo, it would give them a definitive chance to defend it. For the various opposition parties, it would break the current deadlock and enable them to work co-operatively again, implementing the agreement they reached late last year in the multi-party Electoral Reform Committee. And for a government facing burgeoning cynicism and disillusionment, it would offer a way to address the problems they now see with their own ambitious campaign promise, and a chance to try and restore a degree of public trust around this issue.
 
            We must not let the government’s abandonment of this major commitment become just one more bit of old news. With more Canadians aware of the issue than ever before, now is the critical time to take the next step forward.
 
            The Democracy Alert proposal gives us a way to do that which is both principled and practical. Their modified referendum plan provides the time that will be needed to pursue the work the multi-party Electoral Reform Committee began, examining the many possible systems and selecting the best one for Canadians.
 
            This essential process should not be rushed, but nor should it be delayed any longer. One of the beauties of this plan is that attaching the referendum to the next general election will both minimize expenses and maximize public involvement. It will require an amendment to the Referendum Act, but the benefits would make it well worthwhile.
 
            Coming out of Newfoundland and Labrador, this proposal has already sparked the interest of some parliamentarians, and once it is more widely known, it should win broad support from the public across the country. It could be a workable and productive compromise in the best Canadian tradition.
 
            This is not a pipe dream. Like the positive changes now happening in the Senate, a fairer, workable, made-in-Canada electoral system is a totally achievable work in progress. It has been temporarily halted by a misguided decision, but it is propelled by the will of millions of citizens. Now we all just have to get out of our own way, listen to each other, and use our collective energy, creativity and experience to make it happen.
 
 
Helen Forsey is a writer based in Ontario and Newfoundland. Her latest book is "A People's Senate for Canada – Not a Pipe Dream."

Check out our Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1838899483043488/

Why did so many good, conscientious Americans vote for Trump?  And why do we continue to be obsessed by him?

Why are anti-democratic political parties and their populist leaders on the rise in Europe?  


Could the way we use the Internet be contributing to the rise of authoritarian solutions for society's problems?  

This article from a former St. John's NL Occupier explores  how our attachment to Cyberworld is changing the way we value not just democratic activism but democracy itself.  

A version of this  letter, written by one of our members, was published in the Telegram on Monday, the 12th of December.  


Sometimes a cartoon just says it all.   

That’s how I felt about the De Adder cartoon published in the Telegram last week. It showed a mask of Justin Trudeau stripped away to reveal a chipper, prancing Steven Harper. It’s good to see our media subtly acknowledging that the last election changed very little. We still have Steven Harper policies. It’s just that the face and style of delivery have changed.

Four recent federal government decisions stand out to me.

​One is the approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline extension, a decision that accrues all the benefits of increased revenues to one province, Alberta, while residents of another province, BC, get the environmental risks. Not only is this politically unacceptable, but Canada’s continuing blinkered commitment to oil and gas extraction above all else is leading us nowhere economically. Over the last 15 years of this obsession, our export performance has been the second lowest among OECD “rich” countries. Expect the statistics to worsen, given the global community’s commitment to a lower carbon future.

There’s also the Trudeau government’s insistence that CETA, their “gold standard of trade agreements”, should be ratified as quickly as possible. The protests of 455 different civil society organizations across Europe and Canada, the millions of signature garnered through petitions, and the concerns of so many European parliamentarians are simply ignored. CETA must be passed, especially now that it looks as though the two other corporate engineered trade agreements, the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, have been killed off by public opposition in the US and Europe.

Then, last week, the Liberals backtracked on the election promise that 2015 would be the last election held under our first past the post electoral system. Why? I suspect it’s because neither the Canadian public nor the Electoral Reform Committee are interested in Prime Minister Trudeau’s preference, a weighted voting system that would massively favour the election of Liberals.

Most worrying, however, is something that has been underreported - the Liberal government’s new infrastructure initiative. Like many others, I think investing in infrastructure is a very good idea. However, it’s the way it’s going to be done that should be sending out warning bells.

Government has proposed the development of an infrastructure bank largely funded by the private sector. For every dollar that government spends on a project, the bank would attempt to leverage four dollars from private pools of capital. Money raised in this way would be used to finance Public-Private partnerships. The Advisory Council to government has recommended that Ottawa should privatize – in full or in part – some of its existing assets to raise money for the initiative.

I have two concerns. First, the concept makes little economic sense. Why would government seek private investors who will expect a return of seven to nine percent when the government can float 30 year bonds to finance infrastructure at two per cent? Secondly, this initiative will slide us into greater privatization and control of traditional public sectors by international corporations.

Of course, I believe that that is exactly what this government wants. I think it’s time to consider that our elected leaders have been seduced into believing that only the corporate sector knows what’s best for the Canadian economy. It’s Bay Street corporations and financiers that seem to be running the Liberal party. Perhaps they’ve been doing so for a long time and we simply didn’t notice.

There are parallels here with our province. We’re in a massive financial mess because past Conservative governments took their advice exclusively from powerful business groups. It was monumentally bad advice, undoubtedly driven by the vision of quick profits that could be made. Yet my fear is that, in looking for expertise on how to revive our broken economy, our politicians will continue to turn to the very same groups that encouraged so many of those original disastrous decisions and policies.

Like Edsel Bonnell, in his letters to the Telegram, I believe we need more public involvement in long term decision making and much greater cooperation and collaboration among the political parties. Until that happens, expect public anger, pessimism and disrespect to grow in our province.

Marilyn Reid
​Conception Bay South

Check out this comprehensive article on electoral reform by Robin Whitaker in The Independent

Democracy Alert is in the process of developing a "Question of the Day" package that could be used in a variety of ways to pique students' interest on issues that are not currently covered in the curriculum.  ​

Our group has met several times over the last year and a half (2014/2015) with either the Deputy Minister or personnel in the Department of Education.   Conversation has focused on  a possible connection between the falling youth voter  (only 29.5%  of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians  under 25 voted in the 2011 federal election) and the  removal  (almost 20 years ago) of courses like Democracy, World Problems, Global Issues, etc. from the social studies curriculum.  We are particularly concerned that these courses were not replaced by courses that promoted discussion and debate around societal and citizenship issues.  Instead, the focus over the last two decades, has been, in our opinion, on educating students to be good workers and good consumers.  

We have suggested that students graduating from high school should be required to take 

• at least one course that focuses on an analysis and discussion around the important ethical, social, democratic and ideological questions of the 21st century.  (Courses like Democracy, Social Justice and Ethics, Political Science or Philosophy)
• at least one course that examines and analyzes the major economic and political global issues of the 21st century (courses like Global Issues, World Problems or Modern History)

We also suggest that the Career Education course could be downsized into a single credit course and no longer be required as a graduation requirement. ​