Steve: Now, I'm speaking today with a friend of mine, David Marley, who is a very astute observer of not only the political scene, but also follows closely things that have more to do with our judicial system, and has been involved in some cases there, helping people fight injustices. He's also a person who has very strong views about democracy and what is right and wrong in our democracy. David, thank you for joining me.
David: Steve, I'm pleased to be here. Steve: Now, I know that one of the things that I've heard you say, and which I have often repeated, is that there are three things wrong with Canadian democracy. One, I think if I-or maybe I should hear you tell me.
David: The triple evils of North American society. We live in a ritualistic democracy, as opposed to a properly functioning one. People practice identity politics, which leads to grievance mongering, and also we live in a culture of entitlement. Those are the three things, when you take together, make for a very, very sick society.
Steve: Okay, let's start with ritualistic democracy. Is this something that we have more of in Canada than in other Western countries?
David: Well, I think it depends on a variety of factors, but let's compare ourselves, for instance, to the United States. There, the founding fathers back in the eighteenth century were very wise individuals, particularly with respect to human nature. So they designed a governing scheme which, although it has certain weaknesses, I think arguably is the most successful democratic governing scheme ever produced. As far as our own system, British parliamentary democracy, it too is an excellent system, particularly as it has evolved in the mother of all parliaments, in Westminster. We, however, were basically given our model, and like anything, if you don't tend the garden, weeds grow and it chokes the garden. Well, if you don't tend democracy, it dies too, and we have not been tending our democracy. The evidence is there: declining participation in the ballot box, less than two percent of all Canadians belong to political parties in its entirety, so they're becoming prone to the manipulators. We had a recent scandal in B.C. involving corruption in the legislature. How did those individuals get to a position where they could have that power? Well, because they signed up a bunch of people and they took over nominating meetings, so people who became MLAs were in awe. In fact, one MLA, during the investigation, was quoted publicly as saying he held this fellow in awe, because of his ability to manipulate the riding associations.
Steve: Let me just jump in here with a couple of questions and a couple of clarifications. In the United States, you say they have a very good system, and I agree with you in many ways, but their voter participation rate is also not very high.
David: Yes, that's absolutely true, because they have certain pathologies which turn voters away. First of all, they have a very poor education system, these days anyway. Used to be that they taught civics, and they encouraged participation. That's fallen by the wayside since the Second World War. Secondly, they have, I think, voter burnout, because they have a multiplicity of elections. They elect everything from dogcatcher to the local judge. It's hard-if you've ever seen a ballot in the United States, it's very, very hard to cast a meaningful vote, so after a while you figure, "Well, why should I bother?" Also, they've allowed money in politics to drive people out of the process, because of a decision in 1974 in the U.S. Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo, which essentially equated free speech with money. That is to say, you didn't have free speech unless you had the untrammeled ability to broadcast your speech. So we've seen, with every successive election in the United States, quadrupling and even greater leaps in financing. That drives a lot of people out of the process as well.
Steve: Okay, now also you made mention of the situation here in British Columbia, and for people who aren't familiar with our system, of course, a MLA is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and therefore a Member of the Provincial Parliament. So I just thought I would clarify just at that point. The reference there was to an MLA; therefore, someone who was elected, and who was of a particular ethnic background, and was able to mobilize a lot of people of that same background to support him in his candidature. Or, what was it, exactly? I don't remember the situation. David: Well, actually, Steve, it wasn't the MLA that was doing the manipulation. It was one of these "backroom boys," these "partisan apparatchiks," who went on to become the senior legislative aide to the Minister of Finance, a hugely powerful position. It was-what I meant to say, if I didn't say it clearly enough, was that the MLAs were in awe of this man, because he could determine whether or not they would get reelected. The reason being that so few people participate in the process of nominating candidates, that it takes very few people in order to control that nomination.
