I remember writing, two years ago, an essay on Global Politics. It was a second year university course. Actually, there was two of them, I took both. The final exam was no big deal, but the essay... I talked about africa a lot, I think. I remember reading about Congo. This man, Mobutu Sese Seko, was the president or some such of the Republic of Congo. He was also affiliated with the CIA. Anyway, it's a long and short story, but the upper echelons of government in congo were corrupt, and in the 90's, when he was exiled, this Seko guy had made the situation in Congo far, far worse that it would have been had the money given to Congo had actually gone somewhere other than his pockets. But I have mentioned this before, in class. This is a classic example of What Happens When Democracy Fails... In many, many cases the western world attempts to implement a System For The Betterment Of All Humans but it falls prey to the opportunistic personalities located helter skelter along the system. With nothing but empty sky above their heads, leaders are free to become What They Are In The Dark. I think that all nations that begin as a democratically - Haha. I just had a flashes-of -light-connecting-the-dots moment.
Our democracy is effectively protected and stabilized by the presence of the Crown. This is a statement. 19th c. France, {who's leaders at the time of the 1st and 2nd republic; Robespierre and Napoleon 3rd were chosen by election or vote within the parliament or commune} had abolished it's monarchy, and for good reason. But the reality of social instabilities, coupled with popular support within the ruling senate/commune/parliament infrastructure could potentially lead - and did, to the establishing of a regime. Alternately, a succession of regimes established by the ruling millitary authority in the region, and challenged by smaller groups inhabiting the more remote areas in that authority's jurisdiction, is common in the third world. Many, like Seko, ally with global powers to cement their rule, and through a mix of backdoor business deals and official restrictions/sanctions/requirements imposed upon the regime, a suitable level of stability is established in the area. Truly, a state ruled by an iron-fisted man can hardly be worse than a country torn apart by war... The problem in both cases is not the means by which an autocracy is established, but that the system doesn't have a means to ensure that the leader is indeed acting in the people's best interests. This of course can lead to civil war, or stigmatization and genocide. Naturally the entire modus operandi of autocracy means that the leader is not serving the people, but that it is them who serve him, and at best he acts upon his perception of what his state is or should be like, and at worst he - or she, really - does not care. My entire point is this; above the ruling authority, another is required that establishes the purpose of the first and maintains the state's course when there is instability, or in democracies like Canada, dissolving of the ruling body. Thus is Canadian democracy brokered by an institution; the Crown and not, as I had originally assumed, the Parliament.
However whether that democracy represents its people accurately is rightfully beyond the authority of the Crown, the institution, or little would separate us and them. The people govern themselves. The crown governs the governors. Paradox! The Crown has no power, and yet it is the base on which a (hopefully) righteous nation is based. Another point was brought up in class; that recycling of governance is preferable, and this to prevent the same response to conflicts. Another reason exists, I think; that is to prevent the leader from spending so much time in office that they can change the country too much: This would be a good thing, but only if the change represented the country's collective vision, not that of one man. Haha! This has led me to an interesting realization: Democracies are inherently conservative! Not strictly in the political sense; but they are slow to change partly because constitution requires it. Of course a man who has changed a nation might take a lifetime to have done so; by which time the -I have no words- issues may have changed, and his policies would be outdated. So shortening the terms ensures a country stays on course. But in case the course changes sharply, the changes will take long to implement, decades, possibly even centuries; it has been roughly 200 years since the industrial revolution, more than 50 years since political leaders became aware that there was an issue, but visionaries are not accepted by their peers, and in a majority vote system, the coolest cat has all the friends. I suppose that's why they are called revolutionaries. Unable to correct the course quickly enough, they either usurp it out of frustration and take control or destroy it and make a new one. Meanwhile countries like Canada are stuck arguing about whether to support the states and oil and the kyoto agreements and militarizing the nation. This is a good and a bad thing, bad when you agree with the leader because he can never move too far too quickly towards something or he'll lose parliament support, and good when you think the leader's a total idiot. Ultimately it is more or less a good thing,, if you think that it prevents us from erupting into civil war or political instability.
When you think about it, perhaps the US have a better system... Unlike Canada, you can't get re-elected for 30 years straight with a majority vote, which is as Quebec demonstrated rather damaging... This is common knowledge where I come from. Should I source it? Yes. What If I've been wrong all this time, in my assumption? I would look quite the fool.
"Everybody's jaded by fame?" Van, you are quite correct.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Opening Suite
This I in fact forgot to mention. The name of the person I took the quote from, officially, and the book. It is deserving of it's own post.
____
"Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
~ Georges Monbiot, Manifesto For A New World Order
This is the source, or the theme that I am writing about. Though in my defense I did put it in the - no, wait, I didn't! I quoted it from the review article which quoted it! Noo!
____
"Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
~ Georges Monbiot, Manifesto For A New World Order
This is the source, or the theme that I am writing about. Though in my defense I did put it in the - no, wait, I didn't! I quoted it from the review article which quoted it! Noo!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
STORYWRITER
I've realized that there is no point in explaining how the government works. I would have to do a resume. If you want a resume of how the government works, see "Politics of Canada" on wikipedia and have fun. I shan't waste my time when someone else has already gone through this very ordeal. On with the show.
Or not, since I'm clearly bored for having spent the last 23 minutes reading up the various entries for the word shit in the urban dictionary.
Okay, okay. back to work. It's not over yet. What's next? I've already decided that I would tackle the institution part later. Next comes the mandated by the people and made accountable to them. Well, the gov't is mandated by the people in the sense that the leaders are put there because of us, though indirectly.
How is the key. How does the gov't prevent the strong from oppressing the weak? Justice. Is the legal system efficient? Uh Oh. This can't be good. This is an essay in it's own. How does it prevent it's citizens from solving their differences through violence? The Police? No. The threat of punishment. That's what the police are there for. Enforcers more than protectors. There was that one Youtube vid...
Problem being that there are many different levels of governance, and the head is too concerned with it's own existential issues to know exactly what the hands are doing, where the feet are, what the heart rate is and what kind of mineral is lacking in the diet. The head isn't even aware of such mundane things, and its the same with any nation. What is needed is diligence, because no amount of management can control everything in any way.. But diligence is unattainable. How do you get everyone to do what they should be doing, as much as they can, honestly and while trying to understand each other? Can you pay them to do this? No, there cannot be a reward, it should be done from the heart. To look at how online communities function.... The Dollars (baccano) have no group leaders, no hierachy. We have an infrastructure. Everything else is spontaneously added by members of the group who act as controls on their own authority, and they seek to represent the group diligently because they have no official authority other than the recognition of their peers... Hey hey wait I have something here... No one wants to be alienated, so most people obey the rules of respect, despite anonymity. Those that do not conform are shunned by the others, not by any figure of authority. Is that a feasible model? Doesn't that sound like a mix of mob mentality and "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down"? Though there is crowd control that occurs with externals seeking to join, or so I've heard. Perhaps Ayanavi knows more about that. Will have to find her sometime this weekend.
[edit: what keeps things civil in the Dollars is the fact that we are so basic that we lack the ability to even make group decisions via polling... All we can do is rally as many supporters as possible and make our opinion known in the maelstrom of other discussions and irrelevant topics flying around. Of course, because we don't manage anything except the site and have no responsibilities, this is unimportant. Though I will have to, I suppose, bring it up now... And find out if the Dollars need a governing infrastructure. it will be an interesting debate, I think.]
Or not, since I'm clearly bored for having spent the last 23 minutes reading up the various entries for the word shit in the urban dictionary.
Okay, okay. back to work. It's not over yet. What's next? I've already decided that I would tackle the institution part later. Next comes the mandated by the people and made accountable to them. Well, the gov't is mandated by the people in the sense that the leaders are put there because of us, though indirectly.
How is the key. How does the gov't prevent the strong from oppressing the weak? Justice. Is the legal system efficient? Uh Oh. This can't be good. This is an essay in it's own. How does it prevent it's citizens from solving their differences through violence? The Police? No. The threat of punishment. That's what the police are there for. Enforcers more than protectors. There was that one Youtube vid...
Problem being that there are many different levels of governance, and the head is too concerned with it's own existential issues to know exactly what the hands are doing, where the feet are, what the heart rate is and what kind of mineral is lacking in the diet. The head isn't even aware of such mundane things, and its the same with any nation. What is needed is diligence, because no amount of management can control everything in any way.. But diligence is unattainable. How do you get everyone to do what they should be doing, as much as they can, honestly and while trying to understand each other? Can you pay them to do this? No, there cannot be a reward, it should be done from the heart. To look at how online communities function.... The Dollars (baccano) have no group leaders, no hierachy. We have an infrastructure. Everything else is spontaneously added by members of the group who act as controls on their own authority, and they seek to represent the group diligently because they have no official authority other than the recognition of their peers... Hey hey wait I have something here... No one wants to be alienated, so most people obey the rules of respect, despite anonymity. Those that do not conform are shunned by the others, not by any figure of authority. Is that a feasible model? Doesn't that sound like a mix of mob mentality and "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down"? Though there is crowd control that occurs with externals seeking to join, or so I've heard. Perhaps Ayanavi knows more about that. Will have to find her sometime this weekend.
[edit: what keeps things civil in the Dollars is the fact that we are so basic that we lack the ability to even make group decisions via polling... All we can do is rally as many supporters as possible and make our opinion known in the maelstrom of other discussions and irrelevant topics flying around. Of course, because we don't manage anything except the site and have no responsibilities, this is unimportant. Though I will have to, I suppose, bring it up now... And find out if the Dollars need a governing infrastructure. it will be an interesting debate, I think.]
Directive?...
So, what is the correct way to go about this? Obviously I can't finish before tomorrow. But I can do it for the 10th. I find answers. I suppose the best place to start is my sentence. Find things that relate to it, post them here. My real question is "Is the system good?" I hadn't realized that that's an irritating question to ask. I need examples of the state being brokered by institutions, proof that it prevents the strong from opressing the weak, that it holds itself accountable for it's people and doesn't act behind their backs... That it prevents its people from using violence to solve their problems... But see, If I go about it this way, I will come to the conclusion that the state is flawed, because it doesn't do everything right all the time. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether it does things right most of the time, and where the line is drawn. I had not considered this. Basically, If I look for dirt, I will realise that there's dirt everywhere. This would turn this essay into a bashfest. Am I ready to take on such a gargantuan project? That question assumes that it's a logical decision to do so. Alternatively, I could use the phrase as a guideline with which to put in question the efficiency of the state, with the eventual goal of writing my own manifesto, more or less a wishlist for our country, and the world.
Oh my. I see what she meant by "this blog will outlive the projet it was created for." How irritating. Wait, haven't I just reformatted what I said earlier? I have. This is the same idea I had a week ago. I wasn't going to discover what's right about the states... I was going at it knowing full well that I would find bad things everywhere. That's the point. Becoming aware of the mistakes. Really, all I need is a few examples of each part of the sentences and ideas found elsewhere on what would be a good way to deal with them. I also need to set a finishing line for the "project" part of it.
Oh what a blunder. Well, no matter. Let's go fishing.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Bibliography, Final Week [On]
"Elizabeth II." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Monarchy of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Politics of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Free Online Dictionary for English Definitions. Web. 06 Apr. 2011.
A definition. It will do for now, but its not the same one as the one used in my phrase. Oh god, this idea was so stupid. couldn't I just have taken, you know, a boring, easy assignment? Thankfully the brokered by institutions part is really easy. I just have to explain how it works to prove it. Government websites here I come!
They. Have. A list. Of All Positions. In The Entire Government. With Links. That Lead. To PDFs. Or More Links. Wonderful. All the information is always too much information. But I've now learned about bills. So government types spend their everyday writing and reading these pdfs, eh? No wonder they're all insane. Also, they're always printed. Wonder if that'll change if the green party takes the house? Probably not. Save the tr- I mean, some trees. Save some trees! Or wait, perhaps they'd use that excuse to buy iPads for everyone in the House of Commons. Like Oprah. Everyone likes Oprah, so why not? I don't know how to cite that page! It's called Legisinfo. Boring. A faq page. I didn't know where else to start.
Shah, Anup. "WTO Protests in Seattle, 1999 — Global Issues." Global Issues : Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All — Global Issues. 18 Feb. 2001. Web. 09 Apr. 2011.
Moffat, Charles. "Privatization in Canada: Education, Electrity, Two-Tier Healthcare and Water Safety - The Canada EZine." The Lilith Gallery of Toronto. Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Ugh. An magazine aimed at women and men, in that order, means that it's targets are women, but they don't want to alienate men. Dunno if this is true in english but in french, "le masculin l'emporte" and thus, they are alienating me anyway. Still, the author's critique, though not cited, seems well informed enough. Not that I'm going to cite him or anything...
Levenson, Eugenia. "As Nike Goes Green, Can It Improve Working Conditions? - Nov. 17, 2008." Business, Financial, Personal Finance News - CNNMoney.com. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Campbell, Elizabeth, Nicola Mayhaff, Dwight Stewart, and Monique Trepanier. "Canada's Approach to Battling Police Corruption." Aug. 2004. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Goodman, Amy, and Juan Gonzalez. "Globalizing Democracy: Manifesto for a New World Order." Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. 30 Apr. 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
This is an interview between Georges Monbiot and some journalists, talking about the nonsensical nature of the WTO's decision system in the past years, and how recently, poorer states are challenging what he refers to as "The Quad" Can, Jap, EU and USA in their decisions. It then goes on about issues and ideas that Monbiot talked about in his book. Obviously "les enjeux" are dated to the pre-Obama time period, but still fairly current seeing as nothing moves quickly in politics.
P.S.: I may have used backwards logic in several occasions while collecting this information, using examples of which I have heard of/researched previously and simply needed something to refresh/back me up for this paper. The objectivity of this tactic may be questionable, but hey, it's a blog.
Vinter, Hannah. "Brazil to Impose Trade Sanctions on US | The Argentina Independent." The Argentina Independent. 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
"Declaration of War." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. Specifically a note given to this much more formal, and much less accessible government publication;
"Waging war: Parliament’s role and responsibility" House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution; 27 Jul. 2006. Web. 10 Apr. 2011
For the purpose of this sentence in particular: "developments in international law since 1945, notably the United Nations Charter, including its prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, may well have made the declaration of war redundant as a formal international legal instrument." Answering my question that no, Declarations of War can no longer be issued as a threat in many nations, likely also Canada, though a decision made in 1945 on the British constitution would not have affected us.
"Monarchy of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Politics of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Free Online Dictionary for English Definitions. Web. 06 Apr. 2011.
A definition. It will do for now, but its not the same one as the one used in my phrase. Oh god, this idea was so stupid. couldn't I just have taken, you know, a boring, easy assignment? Thankfully the brokered by institutions part is really easy. I just have to explain how it works to prove it. Government websites here I come!
They. Have. A list. Of All Positions. In The Entire Government. With Links. That Lead. To PDFs. Or More Links. Wonderful. All the information is always too much information. But I've now learned about bills. So government types spend their everyday writing and reading these pdfs, eh? No wonder they're all insane. Also, they're always printed. Wonder if that'll change if the green party takes the house? Probably not. Save the tr- I mean, some trees. Save some trees! Or wait, perhaps they'd use that excuse to buy iPads for everyone in the House of Commons. Like Oprah. Everyone likes Oprah, so why not? I don't know how to cite that page! It's called Legisinfo. Boring. A faq page. I didn't know where else to start.
Shah, Anup. "WTO Protests in Seattle, 1999 — Global Issues." Global Issues : Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All — Global Issues. 18 Feb. 2001. Web. 09 Apr. 2011.
Moffat, Charles. "Privatization in Canada: Education, Electrity, Two-Tier Healthcare and Water Safety - The Canada EZine." The Lilith Gallery of Toronto. Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Ugh. An magazine aimed at women and men, in that order, means that it's targets are women, but they don't want to alienate men. Dunno if this is true in english but in french, "le masculin l'emporte" and thus, they are alienating me anyway. Still, the author's critique, though not cited, seems well informed enough. Not that I'm going to cite him or anything...
Levenson, Eugenia. "As Nike Goes Green, Can It Improve Working Conditions? - Nov. 17, 2008." Business, Financial, Personal Finance News - CNNMoney.com. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Campbell, Elizabeth, Nicola Mayhaff, Dwight Stewart, and Monique Trepanier. "Canada's Approach to Battling Police Corruption." Aug. 2004. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Goodman, Amy, and Juan Gonzalez. "Globalizing Democracy: Manifesto for a New World Order." Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. 30 Apr. 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
This is an interview between Georges Monbiot and some journalists, talking about the nonsensical nature of the WTO's decision system in the past years, and how recently, poorer states are challenging what he refers to as "The Quad" Can, Jap, EU and USA in their decisions. It then goes on about issues and ideas that Monbiot talked about in his book. Obviously "les enjeux" are dated to the pre-Obama time period, but still fairly current seeing as nothing moves quickly in politics.
P.S.: I may have used backwards logic in several occasions while collecting this information, using examples of which I have heard of/researched previously and simply needed something to refresh/back me up for this paper. The objectivity of this tactic may be questionable, but hey, it's a blog.
Vinter, Hannah. "Brazil to Impose Trade Sanctions on US | The Argentina Independent." The Argentina Independent. 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
"Declaration of War." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. Specifically a note given to this much more formal, and much less accessible government publication;
"Waging war: Parliament’s role and responsibility" House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution; 27 Jul. 2006. Web. 10 Apr. 2011
For the purpose of this sentence in particular: "developments in international law since 1945, notably the United Nations Charter, including its prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, may well have made the declaration of war redundant as a formal international legal instrument." Answering my question that no, Declarations of War can no longer be issued as a threat in many nations, likely also Canada, though a decision made in 1945 on the British constitution would not have affected us.
The Good, the Bad and the Queen
Once again I post, claiming that I have returned to the matter at hand. Unfortunately for me, I became aware that the entire thing is due on Thursday only the day before yesterday. Oh well. I started reading on Canadian politics. This seems to be the incorrect - or rather, inefficient way to go about this, as I quickly got sidetracked and began to read about the Queen. I have not yet moved past the Wikipedia challenge stage of research. Still, because it was interesting, I shall reveal my findings.
The Queen is the constitutional Monarch of Canada, and is the living embodiment of Canada, and may be referred to simply as Canada. She is the head of 15 independent states, each with their legally distinct monarchical systems. Succession is hereditary and immediate upon the current's monarch death, thus the phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!" Charles, Prince of Wales, is heir apparent. The citizens of Canada pay no dues to the Queen, except when she is on duty representing Canada either internally or abroad. Her reign witnessed the ongoing transition from the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, it being already established upon her coronation that she be the head of independant nations no longer part of the Empire her position being agreed upon by the various nations in something that is similar to a treaty, i.e. one nation may decide to no longer recognize her as monarch, but she will still be the monarch of the other nations. Her role is legal and practical, but not political. The sovereign is given power over the state, but since canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Crown functions as a corporation, with the monarch at the center of a construct which then splits into executive, legislative and judicial branches. Her role, as I understand it, is to regulate stable governance, and safeguard the abuse of power as a representant of the people above government and the political parties. In a way, this suddenly seems incredibly important. If all is well she only observes, and I think her position prevents the commonwealth realms from succumbing to dictatorship. A cleverly designed stratagem where the state directs itself in times of peace, but has a failsafe if things go wrong. I am unsure as to whether or not she has the authority to act, and to what extent, if the constituion is ever threatened. However, her presence forwards the interests of Democracy. Because she holds little political power, she is a non-partisan, which gives her the neutral credibility that party leaders and the MP do not have. In her authority as Queen, she follows the political flow of Canada, and acts in it's best interests.
As it turns out, this was a somewhat fruitful piece of research. Alas, completely [edit: and shamelessly] taken from Wikipedia, so lacking in credibility. Oh well. It seemed researched enough.
[edit: This note is obviously biased. I like the Queen. Still, it is good that she holds little direct political power. The country should decide on matters of the country, so long as the country can agree and things remain civil. Plus there is no denying that the monarch is only human.]
The Queen is the constitutional Monarch of Canada, and is the living embodiment of Canada, and may be referred to simply as Canada. She is the head of 15 independent states, each with their legally distinct monarchical systems. Succession is hereditary and immediate upon the current's monarch death, thus the phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!" Charles, Prince of Wales, is heir apparent. The citizens of Canada pay no dues to the Queen, except when she is on duty representing Canada either internally or abroad. Her reign witnessed the ongoing transition from the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, it being already established upon her coronation that she be the head of independant nations no longer part of the Empire her position being agreed upon by the various nations in something that is similar to a treaty, i.e. one nation may decide to no longer recognize her as monarch, but she will still be the monarch of the other nations. Her role is legal and practical, but not political. The sovereign is given power over the state, but since canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Crown functions as a corporation, with the monarch at the center of a construct which then splits into executive, legislative and judicial branches. Her role, as I understand it, is to regulate stable governance, and safeguard the abuse of power as a representant of the people above government and the political parties. In a way, this suddenly seems incredibly important. If all is well she only observes, and I think her position prevents the commonwealth realms from succumbing to dictatorship. A cleverly designed stratagem where the state directs itself in times of peace, but has a failsafe if things go wrong. I am unsure as to whether or not she has the authority to act, and to what extent, if the constituion is ever threatened. However, her presence forwards the interests of Democracy. Because she holds little political power, she is a non-partisan, which gives her the neutral credibility that party leaders and the MP do not have. In her authority as Queen, she follows the political flow of Canada, and acts in it's best interests.
As it turns out, this was a somewhat fruitful piece of research. Alas, completely [edit: and shamelessly] taken from Wikipedia, so lacking in credibility. Oh well. It seemed researched enough.
[edit: This note is obviously biased. I like the Queen. Still, it is good that she holds little direct political power. The country should decide on matters of the country, so long as the country can agree and things remain civil. Plus there is no denying that the monarch is only human.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)