Canada more democratic than the U.S.?

[Machjo]

Another example of justice trumping democracy.

Canada engaged in slavery for a shorter time than the US not because we were more democratic at the time (heck, we were still a colony while the US already had an elected president!), but rather out of respect for the monarch of the time, Queen Victoria,who stood up in opposition to slavery throughout the empire.

Now we could ask ourselves, which was more just? Long-lasting slavery in a democratic US, or the less democratic but much shorter-lived slavery in Canada?

Democracy does not necessarily equate with justice.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No.

The way Canada handled the issue was certainly legitimate, but to call it "more democratic" is just silly.

Rightly or wrongly, the way California handled it was more democratic.....it is called direct democracy, and is as democratic as you can get.......

That depends upon how you define democracy, Colpy. If you define it simply as majority rule, mob rule, then you are right, USA is closer to mob rule than Canada.

On the other hand, if you define democracy the way I do (majority rule, with strong, robust protection for minorities), then US system is more flawed than Canadian system.

 

[Machjo]

That depends upon how you define democracy, Colpy. If you define it simply as majority rule, mob rule, then you are right, USA is closer to mob rule than Canada.

On the other hand, if you define democracy the way I do (majority rule, with strong, robust protection for minorities), then US system is more flawed than Canadian system.

Couldn't we define the current Canadian system as mob rule too? let's face it, Bill 101 is supported by the majority of Quebecers, but is by no means just.

The Catholic school boards in Onario are unjust too in that they give one religious community a special status over others. Most Ontarians support it, as we can see from the fear of politicians to tackle the issue. Mob rule?

The wilful neglect of historical treaties. Again, most Canadians desire to ignore these treaties entered into in good faith owing to the money it would cost. Again, democratic but unjust. Not another example of mob rule?

In the constitution, we have two official spoken language, neither of which is indigenous to Canada, and neither of which can be considered ethnically neutral. We likewise have not one official indigenous language in the constitution and not one sign language. Essentially a Constitution reflecting hearing Anglo-Saxon and hearing French ethnic interests. Not yet another example of mob rule?

So essentially, bot the US and Canada are governed by mob rule. Now we're debating which one is more prone to mob rule than the other. Does it really matter?

Clearly mob rule is a sign that democracy has gone too far. The question should not be which country practices the most mob rule, but rather what steps we could take to curb the excesses of democracy so as to reign in mob rule. Mob rule is not a uniquely US thing. Add to that that mob rule, as unjust as it is, is still a form of democracy, and thus in itself a proof, for good or bad, of the presence of democracy in a country, in fact a sign of too much democracy, thus transforming democracy into a dirty word.

 

[barney]

I doubt you would encounter much opposition to the idea that the democratic system in the USA is more plutocratic than that of Canada, even among Americans. Since plutocracy in democratic systems implies a deliberate manipulation of the political system by elites in favour of their individual or group interests, then the freedoms necessary for legitimate democracy can--ironically--be curtailed by the participants themselves.

Yes, elites dominate here (just like they do in virtually every other state) but this can supposedly be countered with a strong party and government. (I say supposedly because it's not usually done--govts generally play ball.)

In the USA, the individualistic nature of the presidency and representative system makes it very difficult to form a solid front against such interference in the public sphere.

Individual representatives can be "lobbied" with or without the support of the party to which they are associated. Private parties gradually gain compliance so they eventually get the necessary numbers of representatives they need to get a bill passed. The actual bill is developed to favour those private interests by lobbying the government itself. When the government is made up of people with close connections to those private interests, doing this is a breeze.

Canada is also considered to have a more educated public than the USA (not by much though); if a functional democracy requires voters to be reasonably informed on the issues (as some have suggested), then an ignorant populace in a sense nullifies much of the legitimacy of democracy (namely because people don't know what they're voting for) does it not?

It's ironic that one of the core impetuses behind democratic systems is to prevent tyranny within the state, when the result of democracy gone wrong can be the worst kind of tyranny imaginable. Granted, when democratic system goes wrong, it's not long before it ceases to exist as a democracy. (See: Nazism.)

From what I understand of the two systems, the danger of this happening is greater in the USA than in Canada.

 

[Machjo]

Canada is also considered to have a more educated public than the USA (not by much though); if a functional democracy requires voters to be reasonably informed on the issues (as some have suggested), then an ignorant populace in a sense nullifies much of the legitimacy of democracy (namely because people don't know what they're voting for) does it not?

And this leads to many complications. Do we refuse the right to vote to people with a low leel of education, as a way to protect them from themselves? If so, but in theory everyone should have a right to vote, then do we make education free to everyone until their reach a satisfactory level of education to vote? If so, then a person who repeatedly fails his courses woud be guaranteed the right to go back to school every year until he passes? And how do we define education? Let's say he's highly intelligent but totally corruptible to bribes, racist, etc. He might know maths and astrophysics,but do we consider him educated as a voter? What if he's just lierate but is of good character, honest, kind, caring, etc. Do we consider that a higher form of education that qualifies him to vote? How do we define education? What exactly are we dealing with here?

 

[lone wolf]

That depends upon how you define democracy, Colpy. If you define it simply as majority rule, mob rule, then you are right, USA is closer to mob rule than Canada.

On the other hand, if you define democracy the way I do (majority rule, with strong, robust protection for minorities), then US system is more flawed than Canadian system.

What gives you any more right than anyone else to set definition?

 

[Cliffy]

This whole debate seems to me to be a mute point when in fact both countries are corporate dictatorships with only the illusion of democracy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And this leads to many complications. Do we refuse the right to vote to people with a low leel of education, as a way to protect them from themselves? If so, but in theory everyone should have a right to vote, then do we make education free to everyone until their reach a satisfactory level of education to vote? If so, then a person who repeatedly fails his courses woud be guaranteed the right to go back to school every year until he passes? And how do we define education? Let's say he's highly intelligent but totally corruptible to bribes, racist, etc. He might know maths and astrophysics,but do we consider him educated as a voter? What if he's just lierate but is of good character, honest, kind, caring, etc. Do we consider that a higher form of education that qualifies him to vote? How do we define education? What exactly are we dealing with here?

That is precisely the problem, Machjo. That is why majority rule, mob rule by itself can never be a successful democracy. A successful democracy needs strong protection for minorities, written in the constitution (so that it will be very difficult to get rid of it).

You talk about uneducated people. Sure they should have the right to vote. However, they should not have the right to take rights away from minorities in a 50%+1 referendum.

What do we see in Africa? Whenever there are elections, people vote for candidates of their particular tribe. The majority tribe always wins, the minority tribe loses out. They are then ruthlessly, mercilessly persecuted.

Thus in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo (remember him?) were leaders of two different tribes. Mugabe’s was the majority tribe, he became the PM. I have no idea what happened to Nkomo, may he rest in peace. Or look at Rwanda.

But that is what can happen when there is no protection for minorities. Universal suffrage is possible only with strong, vibrant constitution, which guarantees the basic, fundamental rights to all the citizens.

 

[lone wolf]

This whole debate seems to me to be a mute point when in fact both countries are corporate dictatorships with only the illusion of democracy.

Cigar here please!

 

[Tonington]

And no, I definitely wouldn’t’ call Afghanistan a democracy. Perhaps a democratic Sharia,, or dictatorial democracy, or mob rule, I don’t know. But certainly not a democracy.

What does democratic sharia even mean? You wouldn't call it democracy, but you'd still use democracy to name it? That's ludicrous.

Let's make this real simple. How does an Afghan politician get awarded the position they have? Is it inherited? Is it taken by brute force? Is it by popular vote?

Whether you like it or not, they are selected from a pool of candidates by their fellow Afghans by votes. That is democratic.

A perfect democracy doesn't exist.

 

[JLM]

What does democratic sharia even mean? You wouldn't call it democracy, but you'd still use democracy to name it? That's ludicrous.

Let's make this real simple. How does an Afghan politician get awarded the position they have? Is it inherited? Is it taken by brute force? Is it by popular vote?

Whether you like it or not, they are selected from a pool of candidates by their fellow Afghans by votes. That is democratic.

A perfect democracy doesn't exist.

Maybe not but what would qualify as a perfect democracy? Do you mean a situation where everyone does as he/she pleases? How would that work? I think as close as you are going to get is a gov't. elected by the people for the good of the MAJORITY of the people. Isn't that pretty close to what we have in Canada and the U.S.? I know we have to pay taxes and obey the law, but isn't that ultimately (on paper at least) the only way we can have services and have peace in communities. I know a lot of the money (for services) goes into swill in the trough, but it's up to us to try to elect honest politicians. When I think about it that way- maybe you are right- there isn't a perfect democracy:lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Tonington, democratic Sharia means a mixture of democracy and Sharia. OK, I just made up the term, I don’t really know what I would call Afghanistan, but it is certainly not a democracy.

I think as close as you are going to get is a gov't. elected by the people for the good of the MAJORITY of the people. Isn't that pretty close to what we have in Canada and the U.S.?

Not quite, JLM. I agree that government elected by a majority of the people is an essential part of the democracy, but that is not the whole story. What is also needed is a constitution guaranteeing the rights of the minorities.

Without the second wheel of the guarantee of minority rights, the one wheeled wagon of majority government just would not work. Look at Zimbabwe. The majority tribe (Zanu, I think) keeps electing Mugabe election after election. But there are no guarantees of the rights of the minorities, other tribes, white population (what is left of it) etc. Now, you may call Zimbabwe a democracy, I wouldn’t.

In Canada and USA we have minority rights guaranteed in the constitution (though I don’t think the protection in USA is as strong as that in Canada). That is what makes them democracies, in my opinion.

 

[JLM]

"What is also needed is a constitution guaranteeing the rights of the minorities."- Oh God, P.E.T.'s legacy, I thought we got rid of the man when we buried him. It's almost as if he's been given a say in the definition of the word.

 

[ironsides]

"You talk about uneducated people. Sure they should have the right to vote. However, they should not have the right to take rights away from minorities in a 50%+1 referendum."

You talk about uneducated people. Sure they should have the right to vote. However, they should not have the right to take rights away from minorities in a 50%+1 referendum."
What makes you so sure those people opposing the referendum were uneducated, A vote especially about marriage in a very personal thing, so again why should a person with a PHD have his vote considered better that a High School drop out? Doesn't take rocket science to be in favor or against it. Today they have choices, move to states who accept gay marriage, someday it will be accepted everywhere. Legally it is better to have the word marriage on the certificate to be eligible for federal death benefits. The U.S. Constitution used the word marriage, not to block anything when written. There was no such thing as a civil union back then. Gay used to mean happy, times have changed. But back to point, our majority rule in not as you put it mob rule, majority wins. There are always disgruntled losers.

 

[Colpy]

Tonington, democratic Sharia means a mixture of democracy and Sharia. OK, I just made up the term, I don’t really know what I would call Afghanistan, but it is certainly not a democracy.

I think as close as you are going to get is a gov't. elected by the people for the good of the MAJORITY of the people. Isn't that pretty close to what we have in Canada and the U.S.?

Not quite, JLM. I agree that government elected by a majority of the people is an essential part of the democracy, but that is not the whole story. What is also needed is a constitution guaranteeing the rights of the minorities.

Without the second wheel of the guarantee of minority rights, the one wheeled wagon of majority government just would not work. Look at Zimbabwe. The majority tribe (Zanu, I think) keeps electing Mugabe election after election. But there are no guarantees of the rights of the minorities, other tribes, white population (what is left of it) etc. Now, you may call Zimbabwe a democracy, I wouldn’t.

In Canada and USA we have minority rights guaranteed in the constitution (though I don’t think the protection in USA is as strong as that in Canada). That is what makes them democracies, in my opinion.

Sir Porter, democracy has everything to do with the will of the majority of the people. Constitutional and/or legal defence of minorities thwarts democracy......it is not necessarily part of it.

Constitutional democracy obviously defends minority rights, but once again, those rights are a check on democracy.

And those rights are defended in the US Constitution. They may have different focus than our Charter and laws, but they certainly do not detract from the American claim to democracy, a much purer form than our own. You should not claim that our system is more democratic than the US system because we allow gay marriage. I might say the US system is more democratic than the Canadian because the US system recognizes the right to bear arms. To my mind, the latter is more reflective of liberty........

As for human rights and democracy, I am currently reading Ezra Levant's book Shakedown: How Our Government Is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights. I suggest you get a copy. You might rethink your position. The HRCs in this country are undermining the democratic process, ignoring individual rights, common sense, and in some cases, the law.

Edited to add:

Canada's Constitution actually does a poor job of protecting human rights; just ask any English shop owner in Quebec. Bill 101 was found by the Canadian supreme Court to be a violation of individual rights........but the Quebec gov't invoked the "notwithstanding" clause to continue their perfectly legal persecution of a monority.

The US Constitution does not have a "notwithstanding" clause.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"What is also needed is a constitution guaranteeing the rights of the minorities."- Oh God, P.E.T.'s legacy, I thought we got rid of the man when we buried him. It's almost as if he's been given a say in the definition of the word.

Sorry JLM, but PET will be around as long as Canada is around. He is an integral part of Canada because of the Charter and the Constitution.

 

[JLM]

Sorry JLM, but PET will be around as long as Canada is around. He is an integral part of Canada because of the Charter and the Constitution.

I guess if Canada has a fault that would have to be the biggest one.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The US Constitution does not have a "notwithstanding" clause.

Colpy, I personally like the Notwithstanding Clause (NC), it establishes the superiority of the elected Parliament over the appointed judiciary. That is how it should work in a democracy; Parliament should be able to override the judiciary.

At the same time, it is the job of the judiciary to adjudicate concerning fundamental rights, and NC should be used very sparingly, in an emergency. By using NC, the PM abrogates, invalidates a part of the constitution. PM says that notwithstanding what the constitution says, the law will be such and such.

NC is a nuclear option, and must not be used unless there is a broad consensus in the country for its use. And rightfully, it has never been used by the federal government. Harper had to give an explicit promise that he will not use NC to stop gay marriage, before he could be elected the PM.

The only circumstance where I can see use of NC justified would be if Supreme Court legalizes pedophilia. Short of that, I cannot imagine NC being used. I am personally opposed to polygamy. However, if Supreme Court legalized polygamy, I would be opposed to use NC to ban polygamy again.

NC is a very appropriate check on the judiciary. However, it must be used very rarely. I think Quebec government was wrong in using NC; it was clearly an abuse of NC.

But so far federal government has behaved very sensibly towards NC, it has never used it. If an extremist federal government starts abusing it, I would support the repeal of it.

 

[Tonington]

Maybe not but what would qualify as a perfect democracy? Do you mean a situation where everyone does as he/she pleases? How would that work? I think as close as you are going to get is a gov't. elected by the people for the good of the MAJORITY of the people. Isn't that pretty close to what we have in Canada and the U.S.? I know we have to pay taxes and obey the law, but isn't that ultimately (on paper at least) the only way we can have services and have peace in communities. I know a lot of the money (for services) goes into swill in the trough, but it's up to us to try to elect honest politicians. When I think about it that way- maybe you are right- there isn't a perfect democracy:lol::lol::lol:

A perfect democracy would be utopia, not realistically possible. There is no perfect democracy. People are not monotonic automatons. Even if I thought there were such a perfect situation, it's not going to be shared by all members of society.

Tonington, democratic Sharia means a mixture of democracy and Sharia. OK, I just made up the term, I don’t really know what I would call Afghanistan, but it is certainly not a democracy.

They elect a President. They elect their MP's. That is a Democracy.

Your insistence on defending minority rights against mob rule to me is pretty funny.

Legislators had to get together and draft a constitution. Now, when they vote on that draft, to make it law, there is probably going to be some dissension amongst the legislators. But, in order to become law, it does not require unanimity. Therefore, it is still at best, as you call it, mob rule. The majority gets what they want.

Equality and justice are matters important to governing, but there is no formula for predicting such outcomes simply because the state practices democracy.

 

[Cliffy]

For a constitution to be representative of the people it has to be brought up for referendum and ratified by the people. Ours was not and as far as I'm concerned is a worthless piece of paper that was imposed on us. It was PET's biggest follie. I liked Trudeau but he was dictatorial in some areas.