Re: Re:democracy
At 04:45 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote: Victor Milne: As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the voters seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed. I'm sure from many of his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense. No, I didn't mean it in an elitist sense. I meant it very much in the sense of your posting. What often adds complexity to voter decision-making is the choice between the candidate and the party. I've been faced with this on more than one occasion. I wanted to vote for a party but I simply couldn't stomach the candidate it was running. On one occasion I did not feel any of the candidates were worthy of my vote so I spoiled my ballet. Yes, I will agree the issue of voter decision making is a difficult one. New Zealand had its first MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) election at the end of 1996. They attempted to get over the problem of people voting for a Party when the candidate selected for that people was absolutely useless (in many voters opinions), by giving voters two votes. One vote goes to an electorate candidate while the other goes to The Party of the voters choice. It is The Party Vote which determines the composition of the new parliament. Sounds all very nice and tidy but the system is not perfect, mainly for two reasons:- 1) Tactical voting - eg. when you vote for a minor party because of promises made before the election which specify a certain course of action after the election. This happened in New Zealand when the minor party did the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do. So tactical voting does not always work. 2) The other major problem concerns Party allegiances. The parliament New Zealand has now is nothing like the one that was voted for at the end of 1996. In the last two years nine parliamentarians have either 'jumped ship' to other parties or declared themselves 'independent' (not really independent since are pledged to support the minority government on confidence issues). An attempt was made to address that problem by introducing a members Bill compelling members who 'jumped ship' to resign from parliament but was defeated. I would be interested to hear if you have any further thoughts on how the issue of Voter Choice might be improved. Cheers Ross
Re: democracy
At 09:32 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote: So an unambiguous fact about Democracy, is that Iceland has had one longer than any Western Country as was pointed out to me on this list last year. There are also many pure Democracies in traditional cultures around the world. They are however, remarkably weak militarily and usually small in numbers. We had several in this hemisphere with the "Cuna" in Panama being the oldest. It is generally considered to be a couple of thousand years old, although I don't know how they can tell. Their governmental form is the "town meeting" similar to the old New England version that the settlers took from the Quakers and the Iroquois Confederacy's "Great Law of Peace". It is my understanding that the Maori in New Zealand are also a pure Democracy but perhaps one of our New Zealand list members could help with that more than I. From what I have read on this list regarding democracy several themes stand out. One of these themes seems to be that much of what has been said is very idealistic and divorced from reality. One of these is this idea of "pure" democracy, whatever that means. Some systems may be more democratic than others but no system can be said to be "pure". When Abraham Lincoln gave us that simplistic definition of democracy, "Government for the people, by the people, of the people," he was taking on the role of an idealist since in no situation is this definition strictly true. The idea of "pure" democracy sounds suspiciously like pluralism where it is claimed consensus is reached by balancing out the claims of competing interest groups to reach an amicable solution. Maybe you might like to explain again - I probably missed it - what you mean by "pure democracy". I could be taking the wrong interpretation out of it as obviously my interpretation differs from your interpretation. But democracy is not about consensus, it is about strategies and tactics by those wielding the power including vested interests and lobby groups ( multinational corporations, employer groups, unions, etc), some of whom wield a very powerful influence on 'public opinion' (again, how are we to define 'public opinion'?) and the mechanics of government. It is about half truths and in some cases straight out lies, just so long as these lies are made to appear like 'the truth'. It is about money and lots of it. The vast resources that some organisations can pour into swaying 'public opinion', (the 'public' has got a lot to answer for). Above all, democracy is about manipulation and control in how people, or at least the majority of the people think, so that at the end of the day, the opposition is thoroughly discredited and your side can claim 'victory' by whatever means at your disposal. Whether there is any justification for discrediting 'the enemy' is irrelevant. It is for these reasons that pluralism and the idea of "pure" democracy has to be rejected. If my interpretation is correct and getting back to New Zealand's case, at no stage could the case of the Maori in New Zealand be said to be an example of "pure democracy". Anyone who knows anything of the history of the Maori in New Zealand and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) knows that it is a history of conflict between the indigenous culture (the Maori) with values based around The Land and collectivism. The mana of the tribe is more important than the interests of any one member. In Maori culture great stress is placed on the spiritual values surrounding these concepts. The early European colonists on the other hand brought with them values diametrically opposed to those of the Maori. These were the individualistic values associated with capitalism, namely private ownership and extreme materialism. What is more, the early colonists and missionaries were extremely ethnocentric in that it was assumed that European culture was "superior" to that of the indigenous culture. There was a mission to bring 'civilisation' to the 'backward savages'. It was not recognised that Maori culture was not 'inferior' - it was just different. Thus, integration was the prevailing attitude of the 19th Century rather than partnership, which the Treaty of Waitangi was suposed to stand for. Such attitudes are not dead today by any means, though significant progress has been made to settle disputes, such as the confiscation of land last century, through the Waitangi Tribunal. This brief outline traces the roots of calls within New Zealand for Maori Sovereignty, a separate Maori parliament (Kiwi version), and a separate Justice and Education System. It is an attempt to show that while Maori may have integrated fairly well into the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy imported into New Zealand by the early settlers, there are still deep divisions within New Zealand society between pakeha (Maori name for 'the White man') and Maori, an inevitable consequence of imposing one culture on another. These divisions relate to land,
Re: CUPE Privatization Report
I am reposting the following report which shows that Corporations are gaining control of our public services at an alarming rate for several reasons. These are:- 1) It seems to tie in with the lead article in the local newspaper of 26/1/99 headed up:- "STAFF CUTS ON CARDS FOR COUNCIL" I would appreciate feedback on my comments as well as on the report itself. This article reports on tentative plans of the Palmerston North City Council (New Zealand), which may be included in the upcoming Draft Annual Plan. A radical review of the Council's long-term financial strategy is necessary, or so it is claimed, because of escalating local body costs. Main points of the article are - staff cutbacks, a leaner organisation, user pays water charges and possible private sector involvement in the provision of services. 2) I am seeking feedback and comment from as many list members as possible on a number of issues the newspaper article raises so as to assist in formulating 'battle' strategy well in advance of the call for public consultation and submissions on the proposals. Issues raised in the article are:- a) COSTS. According to the City Manager the existing financial strategy is politically and publically unacceptable, because gross rates will rise by 45% and debt is expected to nearly double within 10 years. Under the new strategy, "while rates and user charges would be paid separately, they collectively would remain very similar to what the rate demand is today". I find this an amazing statement. On the face of it, and judging by the "Cupe Privatization Report"attached, this seems a fallacious argument. If the 'leaner organisation' is achieved and ratepayers get very little for their 'rate dollar' while most services including water, rubbish collection, road maintenance, (you name it), is contracted out to private providers, we are likely to end up paying far more than we do today, if only for the simple reason that private providers are there to make a profit, which must come from somewhere - the long-suffering ratepayers. b) EFFICIENCY. Further efficiency gains can be achieved over the next three years by introducing improvements to "internal processes", the article claims. c) QUALITY AND SAFETY. The article emphasises that levels of service will not be reduced and neither would the Council reduce its commitment to its current 10 year capital programme. Again, I would take that statement with a 'grain of salt' as it seems that privatizing public utilities does compromise levels of service as was shown by the problems experienced by Auckland in the delivery of electricity early in 1998 and the problem with water supply only a few weeks ago. d) STAFF CUTS. Then there is the important issue of job losses. According to the City Manager, staff losses are yet to be calculated as they will depend on what efficiencies can be achieved internally. This fails to take into account the fact that the Council has been going through endless restructuring and drives towards greater efficiency ever since the New Right agenda began to be implemented in the early 1980's. One has to ask - Just how efficient can an organisation become and is there ever an end to it? One thing is certain, if Palmerston North follows the pattern of elsewhere, greater use will be made of part-time and casual labbour as well as a general contracting out of work that used to be performed by the Council. Maybe this a part of what is meant by "efficiency gains" but I am not so sure. I would appreciate as much comment and feedback on these issues as possible. Cheers Ross Swanston At 01:39 PM 1/25/99 -0500, you wrote: Last week CUPE released a wide-ranging annual report on privatization. The full text of the report can be found at the website of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, www.cupe.ca Below is a brief summary of the report and information on how to order a copy. CUPE Releases Major Report on Privatization _Workers' Summary_ Going public about privatization It's a hostile takeover that would inflame any shareholder's meeting. Corporations are gaining control of our public services at an unprecedented pace. CUPE's Annual Report on Privatization documents for the first time the depth and breadth of the corporate takeover that's happening in our hospitals, schools, municipal services, community centres, social services and utilities. When the dots are connected, a clear picture emerges of the threat to good jobs, public safety, quality and accessibility. Pillaging the public purse Contrary to the seductive patter pitching privatization, selling off public services doesn't save the public treasury money. Deals struck with corporations leave governments and taxpayers to assume the risk for many ventures and pick up the pieces when a venture fails. Privatized services continue to draw on the public purse. But instead of supporting well-run, efficient services, tax dollars now
