Open thread: 2015 federal election

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won their first minority in Canada’s 39th general election in 2006, defeating the Liberals under Paul Martin with 124 seats to 103.

In 2008, the Conservatives did better against the Liberals under Stéphane Dion, ending up with 143 and 77 seats respectively.

In 2011, the Conservatives won a majority government with 166 seats. The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff fell to 34 seats and the NDP became the official opposition under Jack Layton.

On October 19th, we will have our 42nd general election. Polls suggest the NDP is most likely to win, but a lot can still change and may outcomes seem possible.

In the long run, I think Canada would be best off if the Liberals and NDP merged into a Liberal-Democratic Party that will be consistently capable of competing with a united right-wing. I respect the fear some people have that a system dominated by two parties will lead to US-style politics. At the same time, Canada’s parliamentary system with executive-legislative fusion has quite distinct characteristics from the US presidential/congressional split.

When it comes to climate politics, we can’t have policies that get reversed with every change of government. Libertarians and conservatives need to acknowledge what we are doing to the planet and endorse effective policies for responding to it. Continued delay will only increase the eventual need for government intervention.

Sweden

As a long-time student of politics, I often find myself wondering if Sweden simply has public policy basically figured out and everyone else is just screwing it up or governed by self-interested elites.

Would nearly all countries be better off imprisoning their politicians and high-level civil servants, bringing in some Swedish politicians and bureaucrats, and then having the newcomers exact sensible public policies across the board?

After finishing my PhD at U of T, the idea of moving to Sweden for at least 2-3 years has a lot of appeal at the moment.

The Harperman imbroglio

This little song, written by Environment Canada scientist Tony Turner, has received a lot of media attention:

CBC: Harperman case: Can public servants be political activists?

The Guardian: Canada government suspends scientist for folk song about prime minister

Both the song and the public responses point to one of the big unsettled questions about the appropriate conduct of the public service. What are citizens who are employed to serve the public interest meant to do when the country is badly governed by their political bosses?

Hedges and Fithian on non-violence

Chris Hedges’ worthwhile new book Wages of Rebellion includes some interesting discussion about the role of nonviolence in activist movements, and the justifications and criticisms deployed about it. He quotes Lisa Fithian’s “Open Letter to the Occupy Movement” to explain why non-violence is a more inclusive approach:

Lack of agreements [to be non-violent] privileges the young over the old, the loud voices over the soft, the fast over the slow, the able-bodied over those with disabilities, the citizen over the immigrant, white folks over people of color, those who can do damage and flee the scene over those who are left to face the consequences.

It’s a good addition to the common justifications for non-violence: that violence is inherently ethically unacceptable, even for a good cause and against the violent; that violence is ineffective at creating political change; and that challenging governments and corporations using violence involves confronting them in the way where they are most powerful.

“The Tyranny of Structurelessness”

Since incorporating as a non-profit, Toronto350.org has been going through some serious growing pains, particularly when it comes to governance and decision-making structures. The group seeks to be profoundly democratic, with open membership and a philosophy where people choose their own level of involvement. At the same time, we have been experiencing difficulties deciding which individuals or sub-groups should make particular decisions, and through what method.

In order to help play a constructive role in the group’s evolution, I have been reading about non-profit and NGO governance, both from an official and legal perspective and from a more theoretical one. Jo Freeman’s 1970 article “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” makes some interesting points about groups that are consciously or unconsciously becoming more formalized:

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the informal structure. It usually doesn’t. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large. “Structurelessness” is organizationally impossible. We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one. Therefore the word will not be used any longer except to refer to the idea it represents. Unstructured will refer to those groups which have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner. Structured will refer to those which have. A Structured group always has formal structure, and may also have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites.

Toronto350.org has had some sort of formal structure for a long time. Initially established as a University of Toronto club, there has long been an elected executive and a constitution which, among other things, defines their roles. Still, one of the main challenges facing us now is professionalization and working out a more effective division of labour. In order to achieve those things without abandoning democratic ideals, we need to take ideas like Freeman’s seriously.

Joe Oliver sit-in

Today there was a student sit-in at the constituency office of MP and Minister of Finance Joe Oliver. The students were calling for an end to Canada’s ineffective and harmful climate change and energy policies.

Six other sit-ins took place, attempting to meet with other MPs across Canada.

On Sunday, the major March for Jobs, Justice, and the Climate will be happening in Toronto: moving from Queen’s Park to Allan Gardens.