Straight Talk About...: Part 10 - Political Party-based vs. Social-based Government Systems

Political-Party Based Government

Once again it is provincial election time in Ontario. All political party candidates are geared up to make their case to the electorate as to why they deserve to be elected.

The problem though, is that many promises are made hastily and very often, once in government, some of the most significant ones might not even be kept. Add to this the vagueness of the entire electioneering process, combined with the, “what's the use" and "who cares" attitude of about 40% of the electorate that refuses to vote, then the relevancy of the whole time-honoured practice becomes questionable. Let alone the fact that eventually, the party receiving only about 30% of the eligible electoral votes can create policies that could deeply inconvenience, or even afflict the lives of millions

So, what could be done to make the debates, the election process, and the government system as a whole, more relevant, credible, and responsible to all its citizenry?

Well, for one thing, each Political Party Leader should prepare and present to the electorate a clear, well-deﬁned, comprehensive program at the start of the campaign. Specifically, the program should contain:

A tabulated summary and prioritized account of all the socio-econo-enviro-ﬁscal problems of the day; plus
A formula as to how, to what degree, when, by what means, and at what cost, these burning problems would be addressed.

This well-defined program could then become a base for a series of serious discussions and debates between the party leaders, as opposed to the current method of engaging in personal attacks, rhetoric, and elusive retorts. Most importantly, this latter format would clarify the party leaders' positions regarding the issues in question, resulting in election campaigns that may even draw more attention and higher participation rates by the voters.

Then, in this era of deep socio-econo-enviro-ﬁscal crises, disunity, and mistrust, shouldn't the very nature of the current government system be also part of the discussions?

Furthermore. could it be that the current political party-based regime has reached its apogee. That it's too divided to come to a consensus on any issues, due to the leaders' doctrinarian and adversarial mindset? This woeful situation, of course, still leaves Canada with 1.367 million, and Ontario with 541.9 thousand unemployed, plus hundreds of thousands of others who had either withdrawn from the 'labour' market or have joined the 'temps corps'. Not to mention the plight of the many "over qualiﬁed," who are unable to ﬁnd their 'niche'.

Therefore, an independent onlooker might just suggest that the current party-based government system has outlived its usefulness, without anyone within the inner circles even realizing it.

But what about the private enterprise, the other half of the establishment, the 'job-creators', who ran the economy into the quagmire?

Well, they had decided to set up shops, at any place, where the cost of operation is much lower and the proﬁt margin is ﬁve to tenfold. So much for solidarity toward the folks of the country in which they reside.

Be that as it may, in this context there is the following food for thought:

Social-Based Government System

Since neither the private enterprise, nor the government has been able to come to grips with society's fundamental problems, due mostly to its “keep out" protocol and a “we know what's the best for the public" platitude, it's probably time to look for options. Options that would allow direct input from concerned, experienced, out-of the box thinkers who are capable in alleviating and even resolving many of today's problems.

One such option is a social-based system -- in essence a Government of the People, by the People, for the People -- wherein government representatives would be elected from all three social entities: Management, Employees (Labour) and the Public. Therein lies the guarantee that everyone's interests are equally represented and dealt with, as opposed to the current practice where the governing party follows the dictates of one segment of society.

In practical terms, citizens of each social entity would form a number of federally/provincially incorporated associations and from their respective membership would, every four years, elect and send into the Parliament/Legislative Assembly an equal number of members, or a total of 90 highly qualified representatives at the federal level, and 60 or less at the provincial level, to manage the country's affairs.

Members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister would be elected by, and from, the elected members of the Parliament. The position of the P.M. would be ﬁlled on a rotating basis from the elected representatives of the aforementioned three social entities.

Cabinet portfolios would also be equally distributed and would be rotated with each term. Thus, all three entities, Management, Employees, and the Public would each have its own turn.

It is envisaged that this government concept would fulfill most of the qualitative requirements of an ideal system, especially in democratic terms, inasmuch as it would:

Become the most direct system of representation. Literally, all three social entities would be represented by the best and the brightest, public-spirited elements of the country.
Replace the current multi-party representation system that does not serve all segments of society equitably, and whose modus operandi is divisionary and adversarial in its nature.
In all probability, ﬁt a substantial number of countries around the world very well, especially in the view of the recent socio-econo-political developments

This system would provide a more seamless operation of the economy through the new level of cooperation between government and business.

We conclude this topic with the following thoughts:

"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part" -- Thomas Jefferson, former U.S. President
"From the beginning, capitalism has been characterized between laissez-faire and intervention. Laissez-faire representing the expression of its economic drive, intervention its democratic orientation. That tension continues today, a deeply embedded part of the historic character of the capitalist system." -- Dr. Robert Heilbroner, Professor of Economics.
"Never underpay or overcharge, and your business will thrive" - Anonymous

Read More