Canadian Election 2011 result: Conservative majority

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the overall result, but I have a few thoughts to jot down:

1) The total vote share of the Conservatives is 40% (giving them about 165 seats), which is up from last election, so this isn't just a matter of vote-splitting weirdness. For whatever reason that I don't really want to speculate about right now, more people voted for the Conservatives than before. Certainly, it's a disappointment to me that the Conservatives didn't lose any seats for their conduct but rather gained enough seats to form a majority government.

2) The NDP came in second, with a vote share of 31%, giving them about 105 seats. I had been hoping that the NDP could have lead a more effective opposition against a minority Conservative government, but it is all for naught. The opposition in a majority government situation is basically useless.

3) A key point to remember is that the NDP fed on other progressive incumbents for most of their seat gains.

Given that the shift in seats was mostly amongst opposition-held ridings (with many falling to the Conservatives), there needs to be a major re-think in political strategy and campaigning amongst all opposition parties (seeing that the Conservative majority government is unlikely to introduce proportional representation measures... just a guess).

I'm too tired to continue tonight... I'll continue later if I manage to think of anything.

Peace and long life.

T minus 2.5 days, or so...

... the electorate's engagement in politics seems to have atrophied as a result of the generally high standard of living in Canada.
-Me, in my previous blog post

Well, I'll concede that I was wrong as the NDP continues to gain popular support according to polls. So while my foot is in my mouth, I have a few thoughts to note:

1) As I noted in my previous post, there is still an "indifference of the majority" at work here. Despite everything, it appears that the Conservatives will win the most seats because things continued smoothly over the last several years for a large number of people.

2) The NDP surge, even if the NDP comes in second, could be considered vindication for progressives everywhere in Canada. Progressives weren't just running around screaming that the sky was falling. For all the positive rhetoric by the Conservatives, a large number of Canadians are unhappy with the previous three years of government... to the point of increasing "polarization" (as if the modern NDP is anything other than a slightly-left-of-centre political party).

3) Assuming a second-place finish for the NDP, the likely Conservative minority government should not view a win as a mandate to do as they wish (but I suspect that they will). Many people were displeased with the previous government, and it's not a tyranny of the majority... it's a democracy.

4) With the demise of the federal Progressive Conservatives in the recent past, it was almost unfathomable to think that the federal Liberals (the oldest federally-registered party in Canada) could face the same fate in the near future... yet, it seems almost possible now.

5) Oddly, my toes taste differently from my fingers. Is that normal?

Peace and long life.

Just for the record about coalition governments

In Canada, we live in a representative democracy. It's a bit messed up because of the first-past-the-post system, where seat distribution is not necessarily indicative of actual voting numbers, but that's not the point of today's post. For all its flaws, Canada is a representative democracy. In each constituency, constituents elect a Member of Parliament who is supposed to best represent their interests.

Why is there such fear about coalition governments? Today, Harper used the possibility of a coalition government for scaremongering. In response, Ignatieff vowed to never seek a coalition government to assuage potential (and, frankly, unfounded) fears amongst the electorate. Duceppe pointed out Harper's hypocrisy by waving a copy of a letter Harper wrote about a possible coalition during the waning days of Paul Martin's Liberal minority.

The likely outcome of the following election is the status quo: the Conservatives will likely win just under half of the seats in the House. In order for Parliament to function in this scenario, parties will have to work together regardless of circumstance. If there are some pressing issues that are shared amongst say the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois and potential legislation can be worked out between the three parties on those few issues (e.g. limiting carbon emissions), consideration should be given to a coalition government. If nothing can be worked out between the three parties (again, assuming no one gets a majority), then the Conservatives would form a minority government.

All Members of Parliament are supposed to serve their constituents, regardless of arrangement of Parliament (majority, minority, coalition, whatever). It's not a "power grab" when these groups of MP's can work together as a government. It's a nonsensical argument: the Liberals in a coalition government would be just as dependent on the NDP and Bloc in a coalition government as a potential Conservative minority would be on the other parties. The NDP and Bloc are not going to mindlessly vote in lockstep with either the Liberals/Conservatives in a coalition/minority government scenario if a bill is disagreeable. MP's have to compromise with each other. That's life in a Parliament without a majority.

The likely sticking point (aside from who gets to introduce bills as a government) is the makeup of the executive. The executive branch has become increasingly (and disproportionately) powerful over the decades, and it is undoubtedly a coveted position. As it stands currently, a Prime Minister is not a dictator. Parliament is ultimately supreme (as it should be, as it is the only branch of government that is elected by the populace).

A problem seems to be a misinterpretation of our electoral system that the Conservatives are willing to play on: the Conservatives want to make it a question of who Canadians want as their leader. A much bigger problem is the apparent implicit acceptance of this "question" as being valid by other politicians and electorate in general.

Canadians don't elect leaders. We elect representatives, who answer to us. Canadians are supposed to be their own leaders.

------------------------------------------

As an aside, the electorate's engagement in politics seems to have atrophied as a result of the generally high standard of living in Canada. It's not really a tyranny of the majority as much as an indifference of the majority right now (see the unchanging support for all political parties as the Conservatives had to deal with one scandal after another). Complacency has replaced any sense of urgency in dealing with still-existing issues (e.g. climate change, gender inequality, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc.) as the government and media keep harping on how good it is in Canada for most of us. As the electorate disconnects with politics, politicians become more disconnected from the electorate.

Ultimately, any wounds on our democracy will be self-inflicted if we don't re-engage with politics.

Peace and long life.

EDIT: To be fair, I should note that Ignatieff did refer to coalition governments as constitutionally legitimate despite his decision to not enter a coalition. Unfortunately, he didn't go into further detail as to why coalitions are legitimate, so right now in the public eye it stands as his word against Harper's...

The language of politics

When I was much younger, I recall a librarian who mentioned that a careful selection of words can affect thought. The example he used was of referring to his significant other as his "love" rather than just his "wife" helped reinforce the actual feeling.

The rationale behind his explanation is somewhat vague, but the idea that thought is linked to language is not a new one. Words compartmentalize complex concepts and meanings, allowing even more complex ideas and thoughts to be generated from such words. The most well-known example of this concept is presented in George Orwell's classic fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which a totalitarian state's language is a greatly-reduced version of English known as "Newspeak". By destroying as many words as possible while allowing society to still function, the totalitarian Oceania had hoped to minimize independent thought and make it impossible to exchange new ideas that could be detrimental to the Party.

Extending the above concept, the use of different sets of words to discuss a particular topic can have an effect on the tone of the discussion. This is the case with politics, where the language used to discuss politics infiltrated by words that carry unsuitable connotations, both purposely and inadvertently.

Overtly violent rhetoric (particularly from the U.S. Tea Party's leadership) is under the microscope after the recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and 17 other people (leaving 5 dead) in Tuscon, Arizona. Although the shooter himself is likely non-partisan, he lived in a society inundated with violent imagery and terminology (not limited to just politics, either) and in a place where getting weaponry was easy.

Going beyond the violent rhetoric in the U.S. that (thankfully) has yet to become commonplace in Canada, one can still find plenty of problematic language used in politics. Politicians often launch attacks on each other with no regard for the degradation of political discourse. (Remember the accusation that an opposition MP was "in cahoots with the Taliban"? There is a reason why the opposition is formally known as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition": having differing opinions should not be interpreted as "disloyalty".)

Language used by the media is often problematic. There are "battles" in elections, and ground is "gained", "held", or "lost" as though territory is being fought over. The media chooses these words to make their narratives sound more exciting, and in a technical sense these words do describe what is going on. However, these words are more strongly associated with warfare between belligerents, and the choice of these words may subtly influence viewers/readers into taking more hardened positions. This effect may be stronger in down times such as the current economic recession, since the public tends to become polarized in bad times anyway.

Partisanship, likely a symptom of the innate human desire to be part of a larger group, is certainly exploited by language as well. It becomes similar to loyalty toward a sports team. One day, your team party will win the Stanley Cup election! Of course, language used in sports also borrows heavily from warfare ("battles", "gaining ground the zone", etc.), which makes the usage of such terms in politics even more seemingly-innocuous and subtly damaging at the same time.

Even more commonplace language not necessarily handpicked by the media taints political discourse. For example, apparently we elect "leaders", not representatives. People are elected to "power". We are encouraged in ads to make a difference by voting, but why are we not encouraged to talk with or write to our elected representatives? It distorts the spirit of democracy: the people govern themselves by selecting representatives who will do the necessary work of governing on the people's behalf. Voting is just the first step in participation in a democracy, but the implicit (and probably unintended) message underlying political discourse is that "people should vote for their desired ruler for the next few years and that's okay".

It likely even affects the motivations of people who run for office. I would suspect that those who run for office to serve the public would differ from those who run for office for "power".

Beyond just better education and trying to get people more involved in politics, I submit that the health of our democracy could benefit from changing people's attitudes through something as simple (?) as being observant about even seemingly-innocuous language being used in political discourse.

Peace and long life.

Refuse to hate...

... that's what Martin Luther King, Jr. would advocate.

Its corollary would probably be "there is nothing to fear but fear itself."

There is a lot of fuss in the media over the arrests of alleged terrorists in Canada, as explained by Dr. Dawg. Worse, the fuss is generally of the fear-mongering variety.

Plenty of people have malicious and murderous intent, and they're not limited to any easily-identifiable "group". Looking at Statistics Canada (while we still can... but that's another subject), the number of homicides in Canada ranged from a low of 594 (in 2007) to 663 (in 2005). In 2009, there were 610 homicides and 806 attempted murders.

There were also 443284 violent Criminal Code violations in total. As it turns out, a lot of people just happen to be malicious jerks (to put it in the mildest terms).

Terrorism is indeed frightening in its concept. Strangers killing other strangers en masse at random and isolated points in time gives terrorism an air of uncertainty, and people naturally fear the unknown. From a statistical standpoint, though, terrorism just isn't a threat that should be on normal people's minds. Major incidents such as the bombing of Air India Flight 182 or September 11, 2001 tend to be the result of series of unfortunate events (i.e. intelligence and law enforcement simultaneously messing up repeatedly) that just are highly unlikely.

The arrests of three alleged terrorists doesn't change anything. The death toll from terrorism on Canadian soil since 9/11 remains 0. Besides, the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

Premature finger-pointing and paranoia only fuels fear and, eventually, hatred. That's not the way to live, and it's not the future that the majority of us want to create.

--------------------------------------------

"The Drumhead" is a fourth-season "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode (original air date of April 29, 1991) that is probably brought up a lot in these overly-paranoid times for its prescience, and it really needs to be brought up again. It was probably written with McCarthyism in mind, which means it's not actually prescient. Its relevance is more likely an indication that our society has not learned from history and is now doomed to repeat it (to paraphrase George Santayana).

In summary, a Klingon spy working for the Romulans sends classified schematics of the Enterprise's warp core to the Romulan intelligence agency (the Tal Shiar). Shortly afterward, an explosion damages the warp core but luckily does not lead to the ship's destruction. After the spy is found not to be the cause of the explosion, an external investigator (a Star Trek cliché - a misguided Admiral) starts to suspect a larger Romulan conspiracy within Starfleet itself and begins interrogating a crew member with Romulan ancestry. It's got to be the Romulan crew member, right? (The answer should be obvious, but of course it's not.)

This episode really needs to be watched to be fully appreciated, in my humble opinion anyway.

Worf: Sir, the Federation does have enemies! We must seek them out!

Picard: Oh, yes. That's how it starts, but the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mr. Worf. I don't like what we have become!

Being an episodic series, what they've become is reverted to the norm at the end of the episode. In real life, though, repairing damage done is not easy. It's just best not to go down that path.

Peace and long life.

Insanity and absurdity in Toronto

In a lot of ways, a protest is symbolic more than anything else. It is impossible for the general public to gather any specific details from a protest... only the the general issues that concern at least a segment of their fellow citizens. It is also impossible for policy change to be discussed between protesters and those with political power in such a setting.

That being said, the freedom of peaceful assembly is of great importance because it symbolizes the general health of a democracy, like a canary in a coal mine. It is only one of numerous rights and freedoms protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it also happens to be one that often provides logistical headaches. How a government handles citizens' rights and freedoms during the most trying of times (from a governmental standpoint) is indicative of how much it respects its own written laws. (As Captain Benjamin Sisko once observed, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise"... a true saint would hold to his or her convictions in difficult times.)

So what has the canary in the coal mine... err, Toronto... told us? The initial signs have caused the canary vomit in revulsion, which then caused it to choke on its own vomit and die. (That was also before the canary had a chance to learn of the 5-metre rule made up by police.)

Right now they are just allegations, but as they say, where there is smoke, there is fire... The idea of detention cages in downtown Toronto should have been of concern before any of this happened (not that there was much time to react to the security plans, though).

Canadians (not just Torontonians) should be incredibly angry and concerned. The next election cannot come soon enough.

------------------------------------------

A couple of other points:

1) In a democracy, government serves the people.

The Canadian government decides to hold the G20 summit in downtown Toronto; however, due to "security risks", over $1 billion is necessary to convert downtown Toronto into a fortress.

So what does the Canadian populace gain from this exercise? Nothing, except for a bigger deficit. The G20's decision making process is inaccessible to the public, nor is it influenced by the public. Holding the summit in Toronto doesn't really show off Toronto as a tourist destination to other national leaders when "Fortress Toronto" is only a husk of its usual busy and colorful self. The only "benefit" is the "prestige" of holding the G20 summit, i.e. nothing tangible.

You know what would have been easier than turning an open city into a fortress? How about holding a summit in a remote location that is easily defended, like somewhere in Canada's majestic mountains. That would be less expensive, the number of protesters and troublemakers would be reduced, there would be fewer bystanders, and there would be less property for vandals to damage.

The converse is true. By actively choosing downtown Toronto, it was more expensive for taxpayers, more accessible for protesters and troublemakers, more bystanders who may be injured if things were go get out of hand, and more property for vandals to damage. I don't exactly sense a desire to serve the people.

2) Police defend citizens and property from criminals.

So what did over $1 billion worth of security provide?

Ignoring theories of police officers pretending to be vandals to discredit protesters, what basically happened was that dozens of masked vandals decided to smash windows and burn unoccupied and isolated police cars, which was not stopped by the police for at least half an hour.

The protection of property wasn't exactly carried out to perfection, to say the least.

After the initial rash of vandalism, later protests were peaceful. Unfortunately, as a result of the vandals, the police were either on edge or embarrassed after their earlier failure, so they cracked down hard... on the peaceful protesters. The treatment of people in the detention cages, as indicated previously, was also extremely poor. (Also getting a badge of shame would be the mainstream media, which could focus only on the vandalism for a long while.)

Numerous reports of violations of citizens' rights and freedoms (and that's not counting the freedom of peaceful assembly) doesn't exactly scream "successful defense of citizens".

In conclusion, the government made a bad decision that they knew would increase the likelihood of confrontation between police and protesters for the sake of political "prestige". (And yes, they knew... hence, the billion dollars of security.) The debacle that resulted should not have surprised anyone.

Peace and long life.

Aid "flotilla" boarded

A convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza was boarded by Israeli commandos in international waters. There are conflicting reports about what exactly happened, but in the end, the ships came under Israeli control.

The Israeli government released videos showing resistance from people armed with knives and broken glass bottles (and other random stuff), but seriously, that would be expected from the crew since they thought that they were under attack.

As for the boarding itself, one must wonder about the foreign policy goals that the Israeli government is trying to achieve from this action. Clearly, they were concerned about the ships, the crew, or the cargo approaching their blockade. If they were worried about the cargo, they could have simply said that they would pass on the aid after inspection. It's doubtful that the crew could have been any real threat, even if "terrorists" were on board, especially since Israel would not have lifted the blockade. The ships would not have been any military threat either, with the exception of ramming being an extremely improbable military use of the civilian ships (they would not survive getting close to real warships).

One possibility is that the Israeli government was expecting a confrontation eventually and decided to have it further away from their shores (even if it meant boarding the ships in international waters). The other possibility is that the Israeli government wanted to flaunt its military power and make an "example" of the convoy to discourage future attempts at getting past their blockade.

Regardless of the exact reasoning that led to the boarding, the other issue is the extreme that the Israeli government is willing to go to in the name of national security. The Israeli government has real security concerns, but it has gone too far with regards to the Palestinians. It doesn't yield land for the Palestinians to create their own nation state, but it doesn't consider Palestinians as citizens, nor does it respect Palestinians' human rights as people living "within" Israel's effective borders. Palestinians are trapped in tiny areas, and they are now denied aid from others.

Israel probably has lingering fears from their numerous historical conflicts with its neighbouring states, but it is not an excuse for their actions against the Palestinians. People (in general, and not just referring to Israel and this incident) need to try harder rise above their baser instincts (such as acting on fear and paranoia) and do the "right thing"... after all, isn't that supposed to be one of the redeeming characteristics of humanity?

Peace and long life.

EDIT: Fixed grammar.