To say there is no debate in the House is to put an unwarranted restriction on the definition of the word "debate".

The government proposes, and the oppostion opposes through engaging in public debate in the Legislature. The fact that, regardless of what is said in a particular debate about a particular piece of legisaltion, the government side will "win", rather than that question being determined by an impartial arbiter based on who debated best, does not mean that debate did not take place. The debate audience is the voting public. Judgement on who wins the debates is reserved until the public expresses its opinion in the next election.

That is what parliamentary government is all about. It is also why I am glad that the STV proposal did not pass. That path leads to uncertainty as to who is responsible for governing. It is ironic that many lament the fact that STV lost in BC, while at the same time bemoaning the fact that the lack of a clear mandate to govern produced the events in Ottawa last week. If you like STV, you better get used to, and applaud what was going on in Ottawa, because that is what it will look like.

Given the unprecedented results of the 2001 election, there may be a valid argument for tweaking our present system by adding some form of a proportion of the vote component, but STV is not that form. I still believe that democracy is better served by the parliamentary form of government that produces a winner that can be held accountable, than a system that would produce a debating society in the sense that Mair refers to, where legislation would be based on consensus, horse trading, and back room deals.

Voter reform that doesn't include changes to remedy what actually is wrong with our system, such as campaign finance reform, outlawing professional lobby groups, providing stiff jail terms and personal financial responsibility for people who accept kick backs, and forcing government to be completely transparent, will not do anything to fix what is broken in our system.

Rafe'

You mentioned the plight of Ms. MacPhail and Ms. Kwan - the previous "Opposition".

They did such a remarkable job in the face of a mob of boorish bullies that the two deserve a monument. Here's my dollar. I suggest a spot on the lawns of the Legislative Buildings. It would be nice before they croak - so they can have a look-see.

You seem to be saying that no matter the size of the Opposition, the government resembles a dictatorship.

One can, of course, look to the media to play a significant role advocating for the public,
but looking at CanWest through the recent campaign, trust may easily be misplaced.

Interesting commentary wstander. “To say there is [responsibility and accountability] in the House, [in its present form] is to put an unwarranted restriction on the definition(s) of the word(s) “responsibility” and “accountability”.

I’m not sure Mair was talking about creating a “debating society”. The most democracy can hope for is a society that is given adequate and factual information necessary to ask the right questions. Government, with an effective opposition, is a major player in providing that information, and has a huge impact on determining what is and what isn’t available for public scrutiny. Fish farms are Mair’s case in point.

The Liberals lied to the voters about the environmental harm created by open net fish farms, and the focus on protecting wild salmon and their habitat once more took a back seat to the fish farm debate.

I agree with redrivergirl, only in there somewhere needs to be the issue of ruling class control of the economy, which allows them to use it as an instrument of blackmail, with which to beat any elected government over the head, unless they bend to their will and interests. This being the element none of them, none of the extant political parties, want to address, acknowledge, or in any way broach-, and are indeed scared crapless.

But until this issue of "democracy" within the economy IS addressed, none of the other band-aids applied to the political system, to try and bend it to the needs of EVERYONE and address the deep needs of the natural world, will bear other than bitter and disappointing fruit. It's the failure of the Greens, for example, no less than the NDP to face up to this underlying inadequacy of capitalism itself, which renders them equally culpable with the greed of the ruling class, and inadequate to the needs of the present AND oncoming future.

It may allow Carole and Ms Carr to be "nice girls", but also not a whole hell of a lot more relevant. Nice is also not only boring, but the same rule applies here as to "the boys". :-)

It is what the "political" ostrich, that is all political parties, fails to see and deal with, for so long as its head is buried in the sand.

Get back in you damned kayak, KWD. :-) Just 'cause your shacking up with my sister-in-law...

KWD

Not if one is able to resist the instant gratification syndrome.

Nearly six decades of waiting for Godot ... and still no gratification. But alas, in Pozzo's scheme of things it's but an instant.

Coyote, I would think that redrivergirl's view of "government transparency" hints at the notion of keeping tabs on and addressing economic democracy.

Now I guess I'll go and turn on Bay Watch, mute the volume, and enjoy a little instant gratification.

I wonder if the legislature is only to there to give stories to the media… This sounds more like the perspective of a media man than that of a one-time MLA. Perhaps democracy is best served messy, rather than in neat and tidy 2-piece pies, where someone always comes up short. I for one am fascinated by what is happening in Ottawa: who would have thought that the liberals would have given up their corporate tax breaks? (Even if only temporarily.) In BC, STV would have shaken things up similarly… While wstander’s contention that “…legislation would be based on consensus, horse trading, and back room deals” certainly sounds like a bad thing, perhaps it is better than legislation based on decree −with or without a watchful opposition.

As for those fish farms, I wouldn’t hold your breath Raif. Even though the fish farm ridings fell into the hands of the opposition, I wouldn’t expect that to change the Liberal policy. Indeed, with the votes gone anyway, they have little left to lose. Over the past decade or so, the right has definitely become more ideological than the left… Fish farms represent the Liberal view of “progress,” regardless of the facts.

What I would like to see is a legislature that in some small way could rid itself of one-party ideology… (STV would have done that.)

I knew you were a closet pig. :-) You Greens are all the same.

I agree, the fine woman that she is, was "hinting at the notion" quite possibly. I just wanted to direct attention to the issue, and make it unmistakeable.

There are a goodly number of really excellent writers and political minds of the female gender here, for which I have the greatest respect, of which redrivergirl is one of the keenest, to my mind.

If I have seemed to detract or in any way belittle her own piece, I will crawl across ten miles of broken glass, naked, on my hands and knees in penance. And feel ashamed. :-)

I am prostrate with contrition.

But then KWD is just a dork, who seeks to score easy point upon the child like naivete of such as myself. :-)

Blush. :)

Rafe misses a couple salient points about the role of the news media in a democracy:

1) Today's news media is fuelled by a need to generate controversy to attract public attention to itself - and thereby charge exhorbitant rates for advertising.

The legislature is a metaphorical battleground, and will always be approached as such by the media. When there are insufficient 'resources' to provide the media with easy stories of conflict and scandal, they are forced to get off their duffs and create their own. It has nothing to do with fulfilling the role of opposition, and everything to do with selling advertising at a profit.

2) An assumption is being made in Rafe's piece that the news media is an honest broker with no specific political agenda of its own. In that scenario, the public could be confident of the active role that media would play in creating an informed electorate.

Long past are the days of an objective news media. Personal commentary is passed off as news. Entire feature newspaper sections of factually inaccurate pro-government propaganda (remember the Sun's 'Outlook' supplement?) is presented as news. Media companies that own a virtual monopoly of the province's news media contribute tens of thousands of dollars to the corporate political party of choice.

There is a fundamental imbalance in our democratic society in B.C., and a strong Opposition can only use the prurient self-interest of the media to communicate their message to the public. Unfortunately, that message is almost exclusively conflict-oriented and rhetorical in tone, to break through the media's editorial filter. In the end, the party with the most effective conflict strategy wins - and the rest us lose by omission.

There's a delightful story in today's N.Y. Times called "Death By a Thousand Blogs" ... it's worth a look.

That's the Web site of a self-appointed journalist named Li Xinde. He made a modest fortune selling Chinese medicine around the country, and now he's started the Chinese Public Opinion Surveillance Net - one of four million blogs in China.

Mr. Li travels around China with an I.B.M. laptop and a digital camera, investigating cases of official wrongdoing. Then he writes about them on his Web site and skips town before the local authorities can arrest him.

There's more. Recommended for anybody worried about media convergence and/or a ruthless government.

Krispy,

Of the media, you are soooo right. It has been said many times that, if it bleeds it leads. And few things are bloodier than war. Who can forget so much of the major media gungho on Canada joining a war of doubtful legality against Iraq?

And who can forget the black eye the media received in its previous reporting of the conflict there?

When was the media ever unbiased? The only names that I can dredge up from 'the history of the media' all had a point of view. I mean, the famous reason to start one's own newspaper is to get one's point of view out there. There aren't that many papers started as solid business opportunities.

And in defense of Harcourt, though it'll be hard to get my voice above the choir, the loyal opposition at the time were a pack of unbelievable shist who had little interest in exposing mistakes and every intention of hamstringing the government.

I love that death by a thousand blogs story, BCMary. Of course, if the internet stops being wild and free, then your hero will lose his access. The Patriot Act consolidated American control over the ethernet as an aspect of "outer space".

ghostsmachine,
Jost logged off a NYT audio clip
on one of China's maverick bloggers and opened The Tyee to this - your post.

Great stuff. Long live the Web.

Please give us more but..er..could you be a little less mealymouthed? :-)

Okay .... so I gather they're really, really bad on all levels, ghostmachine?

wow...that ghostmachine gives good babble. After reading that I don't know where I am or who I am......

Ghostmachine.....

Couldn't have said it better myself!!