An important debate

Comment has just published my article, titled: Religion and democracy: Habermas vs. Flores d'Arcais. From the first paragraph:

Few issues ruffle more feathers, more frequently, than the place of religion in the political realm. According to the reigning modernist framework, rooted either in liberal individualism or in some form of secular collectivism, the state is neutral territory. Here neutrality is defined, not merely as formal indifference to what John Rawls labels the comprehensive doctrines that divide the particular communities comprising the state or nation, but as emptying the public square of every value-laden worldview that resists rational discussion and therefore threatens to divide a polity.

Feel free to read the rest if you are so inclined.

Putin's next moves

It's all falling into place: Putin Names A Successor: 42-year-old Dmitri Medvedev, who appears to be doing as he was told in this speech:

In order to stay on this path, it is not enough to elect a new president who shares this ideology. It is not less important to maintain the efficiency of the team formed by the incumbent president. That is why I find it extremely important for our country to keep Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin at the most important position in the executive power, at the post of the chairman of the government.

He led the list of the biggest party, United Russia, which won an impressive victory at the elections to the State Duma and only with this composition, will the new legislative and executive power be able to work efficiently.

Expressing preparedness to run for the post of president of Russia, I appeal to him with a request to give a principled consent to head the government of Russia after the election of a new president of our country.

President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. Soon the only title Putin will not have worn is that of tsar.

Putin's Russia

Here are two somewhat contrasting views of Russia under Vladimir Putin after an election many observers are calling the least fair of the post-soviet era. First, Amy Knight writing for The Globe and Mail: Amy Knight on Putin, Russia's democratic future. Here is Prof. Knight:

The election, on the surface, affirms the idea that most people in Russia believe that Mr. Putin is doing a good job. His consistently high ratings in opinion polls (over 70 per cent) add to this impression. But it is important to remember that Russian people are not presented with a full and objective picture, because of the Kremlin's control of the media. Mr. Putin is virtually the only political figure with name recognition in Russia. He gets personal credit for everything, while the continuous stream of sycophantic praise for him on state television is drummed into the minds of the Russian populace. As for Washington trying to undermine Mr. Putin, I am not sure that this is the case. If anything, the Bush Administration has been bending over backwards (too far, in my opinion) to embrace Mr. Putin as a credible leader, with whom the West can do business.

But Mortimer Zuckerman, writing in US News and World Report, has a contrasting view: Has Russia Left the West? Here's Zuckerman:

The Russians' perspective is based on the following: They closed military bases in Vietnam and Cuba; they accepted America's unilateral exit from the antiballistic missile treaty; they cooperated in the war on terrorism; they acquiesced in NATO expansion into the Baltic States, as well as the use of military bases in Uzbekistan, Kirgizstan, and Tajikistan. And what did they get? Certainly not an understanding of Russia's special role in the post-Soviet territories, where some 25 million ethnic Russians live outside Russia. Instead, they had to cope with abrupt acceptance into NATO of the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and our recent support for admission of Ukraine and Georgia. As they see it, "democracy" is being used to expand American interests, to embarrass and isolate Putin and undermine Russia's influence through the counterrevolutions described as the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia. Ukraine is a specific hot spot since it is a neighboring state that joined the Russian Empire in the 17th century and has a large Russian population. These challenges to Russia in an area so central to its national identity were barely discussed in the West.

Russia also resented NATO when it went to war against Serbia over Russian objections and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. And when Russia proposed joining NATO, it was rejected. That was not all. Instead of helping Russia's integration into the world economy, the United States turned out to be a major roadblock to Russia's membership in the World Trade Organization. And we have allowed our own laws to be violated in a manner insulting to Russia. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was passed to penalize and constrain trade with countries that restrict emigration. Russia responded positively by removing all restrictions. It was found to be in formal compliance with the immigration provisions of Jackson-Vanik. But it made no difference. The old resolution is still applied because of senatorial pressure, indeed because of a single senator.

Putin wins big

There were no surprises in yesterday's parliamentary elections in Russia, with Putin's United Russia winning 315 out of 450 seats in the State Duma. Nevertheless, the opposition parties are crying foul. Presidential aspirant and former world chess champion Garry Kasparov has gone so far as to call the contest a struggle against tyranny, recounting his own experience in a Moscow jail. How are the Russian people taking this apparent return to Soviet-era tactics? Pre-election opinion polls gave little cause for optimism, according to this National Post article: "Public opinion polls show Mr. Putin enjoys an 84% approval rating and almost 50% of voters say they wouldn't mind if he became president for life." The lesson? Old habits die hard, and political cultures do not change overnight. Indeed it may take centuries.

Proportional representation?

Writing for the Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon appears to be confused: Tories deny Ontario democracy. He begins with this:

Canada needs electoral reform to bring in proportional representation. It is unconscionable that in a modern democracy such as ours, vast swathes of the electorate should be effectively disenfranchised by a voting system that is essentially corrupt, disproportionately weighted to favour some segments of the electorate to the misfortune of others.

So far so good. Or at least it seems so on the surface. He properly draws attention to a federal bill that would shortchange Ontario voters by eroding the principle of one-person one-vote. But towards the end of his piece he unexpectedly derides any measure that would actually do something to enfranchise "vast swathes of the electorate" and to keep millions of votes from being wasted at election time, namely, some form of proportional representation!

No, Mr. Solomon, Fair Vote Canada has not "appropriated" this term for its own purposes. Proportional representation is a well-known term and accurately describes the several electoral systems used in most of the world's constitutional democracies. What you are addressing is representation by population, or rep-by-pop, which is a related issue but certainly not the same thing.

Watch it, Stephen!

It seems I am not the only one to think Stephen Harper may be warming up too quickly to a referendum on the Senate: Vote on Senate 'premature,' PM warned. Here is Preston Manning's view:

Mr. Manning said Tuesday that he supports the idea of a referendum, but that the question cannot be solely about abolition. Rather, Canadians should be asked to choose between abolition and reform. He also said that a referendum can be fair only if the government were to finance both sides of the issue so Canadians could be well-informed about the options before they go to the polls.

And now Liberal leader Stéphane Dion:

Mr. Dion said a referendum would be expensive and almost useless because of the possibility it would divide the country. He noted that even if a majority voted in favour, some provinces would almost certainly be opposed and that a constitutional change of such significance would require unanimity among the provinces. He suggested that the Prime Minister convene a meeting of premiers before pressing ahead with a referendum.

I suspect that most constitutional scholars would hold that a referendum on such an issue could be at most only advisory, and that the issue would have to be decided according to the procedures laid out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, requiring unanimous consent of each provincial legislature. Although the possibility of abolishing the Senate is not mentioned in this act, its existence is assumed in 41(1)(b). Of course, one might conceivably make a case, under section 42(b), that the general amending formula in 38(1) would be sufficient, viz., approval by both chambers of Parliament and at least 7 provinces containing at least 50 percent of Canada's population. Yet that subsection refers only to "the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators," which would seem to exclude abolition.

Thus I believe Dion is on solid constitutional ground, and both Manning and Dion are on solid political ground. Harper would be wise to heed their warnings.

Referendum on Senate?

NDP leader Jack Layton and Conservative Senator Hugh Segal have proposed a national referendum on abolishing Canada's Senate, the unelected upper chamber of Parliament. Now Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated that he would support such a referendum if the Senate cannot be reformed. If Harper is serious about this, he could effectively alienate the west, which is a key Conservative stronghold. In general, westerners prefer to see a "Triple E" Senate — elected, equal and effective. By giving each province the same number of Senators, by having them elected for fixed terms and by empowering them to check the Commons, a Triple-E Senate would more closely resemble the American and Australian Senates.

Needless to say, there is no enthusiasm for such a Senate in Ontario and Québec, whose dominance of Parliament as a whole would be curtailed under the new arrangement. They and New Democrats alike would prefer to see the Senate abolished. However, in supporting such a referendum, Harper would take a potentially huge risk. If voters in Ontario and Québec won a victory for abolition through sheer numbers, and if westerners had voted overwhelmingly to oppose such a move on grounds that it would eliminate any possibility of their having a greater voice in Ottawa, it could conceivably exacerbate the regional divisions in this country and in his own party.

Yet Harper has proved himself to be a crafty politician. He must know all this. Which makes me wonder whether he might have something up his sleeve. Stay tuned.

Subverting reform?

The CBC's Don Newman has an interesting take on Stephen Harper's likely ambivalence over the fixed election dates that were part of his package of constitutional reforms: Hard to Get a Date. Prior to adopting this reform, a government could easily time an election by requesting dissolution of Parliament at virtually any moment it deemed favourable to its own electoral fortunes. I myself have favoured fixed election dates because it promised to remove one more of the vast powers of the prime minister.

However, as Newman points out, a clever PM in a minority government may find a way around this. If the principal opposition party is in disarray, as are the Liberals at the moment, and if the opinion polls show the Conservatives in majority territory, the temptation will be great for Harper to engineer the defeat of his own government, as Trudeau did in 1974, in the hopes that he might receive a majority in the ensuing election. That may be what he's doing by proposing legislation he knows will be unpalatable to the opposition. Of course, this could all backfire on Harper if the public perceives him to be subverting his own reform for partisan purposes.

In a multiparty democracy, where coalition rather than minority governments are the norm, a prime minister would not be able to do this on his own, because he would have his coalition partners to answer to. Moreover, if he were leading a coalition government commanding the majority of seats in the lower chamber, the felt need to engage in this tactic would be unlikely to present itself.

This raises once again the issue of electoral reform. Ontario voters just defeated the mixed-member-proportional system (MMP), seemingly indicating that they are satisfied to be ruled by a government most of them opposed. As French political scientist Maurice Duverger demonstrated more than half a century ago, there is a causal connection between electoral and party systems. Proportional representation (PR) tends to produce multiple parties none of which by itself is likely to command a majority of seats in parliament. This forces them to co-operate in coalition governments, as they do in Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, which adopted MMP a decade and a half ago, Thérèse Arseneau, a Canadian expat living amongst the Kiwis, defends the new system against its detractors: MMP still the better option.

Postmortem on electoral reform

Unlike many pundits who assume electoral reform is dead after wednesday's referendum, Andrew Coyne begs to differ: Electoral reform will rise again.

The 37% of Ontario voters who voted in favour of the proposed mixed member proportional (MMP) scheme is within a few percentage points of the 42% who voted for Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals..., who were variously said to have won a massive, historic, decisive majority. It was about as many as voted for the “majority” NDP government in 1990, or the “majority” federal Liberal government in 1997.

Unfair, you say: Mr. McGuinty had more than one opponent. But what is common to all of the other parties is that voters preferred them to Mr. McGuinty’s Liberals. In the race between Dalton and Not Dalton, the Dalton party suffered a decisive defeat. Yet Mr. McGuinty is today congratulated on his majority government, while MMP, in the words of a National Post editorial, “took a pasting.”

What is remarkable, Coyne observes, is that as many as 37 percent of voters in this province voted in favour of MMP, despite a "blizzard of misinformation." "If not quite a ringing endorsement of MMP, it suggests a significant level of dissatisfaction with the status quo — a conclusion amplified by the abysmal turnout, a historic low of 52%."

Post-election blues

This is cause for melancholy the day after: Ontario rejects electoral reform in referendum. In the meantime Dalton McGuinty's Liberal Party has won another majority, the first time a Liberal government has won back-to-back majorities since 1937. Yet 57.81 per cent of Ontarians voted against the Liberals, thanks to the distortions of our first-past-the-post electoral system. Adding up these two results can only yield the conclusion that voters in this province like having a single party govern against their expressed wishes. Go figure.

Ontario's referendum

Our family finally received in the mail a flier about the upcoming referendum on reforming the province's electoral system. This was published by Elections Ontario, which maintains this website to provide information to voters. I, of course, will definitely be voting in favour of the mixed-member-proportional system (MMP). For those still in doubt, it needs to be emphasized that it entails, not an abandonment of our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, but an addition to it to ensure that every vote truly counts and that the diversity of political visions is better represented in the legislature.

In the meantime, Hamilton's own Sheila Copps defends our current electoral system with this measured and thoughtful op-ed piece: Foolish Ontario could muck up country. To her credit, Copps uses the words extreme or extremist only 5 times, which must have required considerable restraint on her part.

Conservative leader John Tory is hinting that he will vote no in the referendum. Why? Ostensibly "because some MPPs would be 'appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents'." The real reason? Both his party and the Liberals would no longer monopolize the political process as they do now. In short, Tory's Tories would lose out.

The October issue of The Walrus carries this article advocating MMP by Daniel Aldana Cohen: Blown Into Proportion. Cohen holds out an intriguing possibility for our future:

If Ontario’s voters opt for change, Canada could follow. Imagine Ottawa’s metamorphosis: a small but strong Green Party; the Bloc Québécois cut almost in half; Liberals and New Democrats from Alberta, Tories from the big cities; a new party or two; many more female and minority members; a bump in voter turnout; the pmo reined in by Parliament; stable coalition governments. For much of the old guard, this would be a nightmare.

No wonder Tory is so skittish. Now we have to convince our fellow citizens of the merits of adopting MMP. It really will give them a stronger voice by ensuring that votes are not wasted. Without adequate information ordinary citizens are inclined to stick with what they know. When MMP is explained to them, they tend to become enthusiastic supporters. Let's break the conspiracy of silence in the corridors of power and vote YES on 10 October!

REAL Women needs to get real

Gwen Landolt, National Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, has issued a statement opposing the mixed-member-proportional (MMP) system that Ontarians will be voting on a month from today, as reported here: REAL Women of Canada Warns Against Ontario Proportional Representation Voting Change. Landolt claims that "it will undermine our democratic system of government." Admitting that under MMP parties will have to form coalition governments, she raises the spectre of short-lived Italian-style governments plaguing Canada's political process. Landolt also fears that feminist influence within the major parties will increase as a consequence of MMP.

Her objections need to be addressed and put to rest. First, MMP will produce a legislature more, not less, representative of the political opinions of ordinary voters. Under our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, a single party takes all the effective power over the opposition of most voters. Why Landolt would find this democratic is a mystery.

Second, Germany and New Zealand, both of which use MMP, are stable democracies with governments generally lasting as long as they are expected to. The Netherlands uses a straight party list system with no single-member constituencies, and its governments are also durable. Electoral reform and multiparty coalition governments do not by themselves foment political instability.

Finally, Landolt fears that the major parties would pander to special interests, including feminists, in allocating list seats. This misses the point. Under MMP the "major" parties would no longer be as strong as they are now, with other parties, along with the viewpoints they represent, gaining seats in the legislature, provided they receive at least 3 percent of the vote. This could include a party more in keeping with the convictions of Landolt and REAL Women — one that is currently handicapped by FPTP. The Family Coalition Party (FCP) comes to mind here.

Incidentally the FCP favours MMP. Landolt's group should rethink its opposition and consider the possible advantages of MMP to its own cause.

Russian novelist on democracy

The German weekly Der Spiegel carries an interview with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn that is worth reading. Here is the famed Russian novelist on the role of parties in the political process:

I am a convinced and consistent critic of "party-parliamentarism." I am for non-partisan elections of true people's representatives who are accountable to their regions and districts; and who in case of unsatisfactory work can be recalled. I do understand and respect the formation of groups on economical, cooperative, territorial, educational, professional and industrial principles, but I see nothing organic in political parties. Politically motivated ties can be unstable and quite often they have selfish ulterior motives. Leon Trotsky said it accurately during the October Revolution: "A party that does not strive for the seizure of power is worth nothing." We are talking about seeking benefit for the party itself at the expense of the rest of the people. This can happen whether the takeover is peaceful or not. Voting for impersonal parties and their programs is a false substitute for the only true way to elect people's representatives: voting by an actual person for an actual candidate. This is the whole point behind popular representation.

Loyalists of the old Reform Party here in Canada appear to have a kindred spirit from across the pond.

Washington, DC: Taxation with representation?

In a previous post I pointed out that Washington, DC, licence plates carry the words, TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. There have long been efforts to do something about the anomalous status of the District of Columbia, including a failed 20-year-old attempt to make it the 51st state. Now there is a bill before the United States Senate to add two representatives to the House of Representatives, including one for DC. TIME Magazine reports: Will D.C. Finally Get a Vote? The original District of Columbia was established in 1790 on land ceded by Maryland and Virginia. (The region south of the Potomac River was returned to Virginia in 1847.) The reason for establishing a federal capital on "neutral" territory was to avoid favouring or empowering one state over the others, an idea borrowed for other planned federal capitals, such as Canberra and Brasilia. The difficulty with the American version of this is that it effectively disenfranchised the residents of Washington, who could not even vote for the president until the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961. Obviously something must be done to regularize the status of US citizens who pay taxes but are not fully represented in the centres of decision-making power.

Yet it's not clear that the current legislation is constitutional, which is animating the opposition. Not so incidentally, Republicans oppose the measure, as enfranchising heavily Democratic DC residents would almost certainly strengthen the latter party's presence in Congress. Accordingly President Bush may veto the bill.




Here in Canada we have a National Capital Region, but it does not have a distinct political status like federal capital districts elsewhere. Encompassing the cities of Ottawa, Ontario, and Gatineau, Québec, residents vote in the elections of their respective provinces, in addition to casting ballots in federal elections for a member of parliament. I cannot honestly say that this arrangement has avoided antagonizing the other provinces, mostly because the capital's location only underscores further the reality of central Canada's dominance over the country's political life.

I personally favour granting DC residents congressional representation. Nevertheless, it might be wise for American policy-makers to look into how other federal systems, such as Australia, Germany and Brazil, have addressed the need for representation in their own capital cities. Americans can rightly be said to have invented modern constitutional federalism, but it may be that others have solved dilemmas that the founding fathers did not anticipate more than two centuries ago.

Putin speaks

This interview with President Vladimir Putin is must reading for anyone with an interest in the politics of the Russian Federation and its relations with its foreign "partners." It will also likely be required reading for my students in POL 265 this autumn. An excerpt:

Of course, I am a pure and absolute democrat. But you know what the problem is? Not the problem, a tragedy, a real tragedy. The tragedy is that I am alone. I am the only such pure democrat. There are no such other democrats in the world. . . . After the death of Mahatma Ghandi, I have nobody to talk to.

Well, that is reassuring. It seems I've been too hasty in labelling poor Volodya "Stalin Lite."