Idea #9: Progressive Populism
BC is at the centre of a new wave of political participation.
New ideas for the new year.
[Editor's note: Back by popular demand, The Tyee again is offering its readers a series of New Ideas for the New Year. We're publishing one every weekday from Dec. 22 to Jan. 2. They're intended to get everyone's problem-solving creative thinking going for 2009. Later in January, we'll be asking you to suggest your own new ideas for the new year, and will publish a selection.]
Students of history know there are really two axes to Canadian politics. When people argue about the ability of governments and markets to provide health care or create prosperity, they're talking about ideological differences using the shorthand of left and right. But a second axis has long shaped our most serious debates.
Operating further from view, the tension between the establishment and the upstarts, or the power elites and grassroots populists, is as old as the dynasties that supported the Family Compact and Chateau Clique. Western Canadians know this too well. The Reform Party was built on a surge of conservative populism and outrage at the supposed arrogance of Easterners in Ottawa.
Its remedy was a political program based on the idea that the people know best, that elite institutions are suspect, and that more direct forms of democracy are needed to hold activist judges and out-of-touch MPs to account.
Starting in the early 1990s, recall, referenda and senate reform became the three Rs of Canadian politics -- but other ideas percolated up as well, including fixed election dates, and the dismantling of unelected public commissions and boards believed to serve elite interests and agendas.
Like their neoconservative cousins, conservative populists are generally suspicious of government. Together they share a healthy enmity towards liberal elites. Where they differ however is on the proper role of the public. For neoconservatives, their work is about replacing one elite with another. For conservative populists, it's about doing away with elites altogether.
Calgary School meet Vancouver School
But as conservative populism stalled outside the gates of 24 Sussex, a new progressive populism is stirring and may soon be poised to scramble our political allegiances and polarities.
Progressive populists believe in opening up elite institutions rather burying them. They believe in democratic innovation and experimentation and are as interested in democratizing workplaces, social life and policy-making as they are in the cut and thrust of partisan politics. Rather than accountability, they emphasize building trust and confidence in the public sector while reinventing its institutions.
They read books like Daniel Yanklovich's Coming to Public Judgment, Roberto Unger's Democracy Realized and Ricardo Semler's Maverick.
And just as the conservative populists had the Calgary School, progressive populists can look further westward to Vancouver's Simon Fraser University's Centre for Dialogue and UBC's Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, where academics Mark Warren, Ken Carty and Amy Lang have been working to open up the debate with new books and conferences dedicated to examining a made-in-Canada approach to civic engagement.
Collectively, they're giving voice to the widely held view that democracy should be more deliberative and less partisan, and that representative government is in flux. For examples, they'll point to consensus-based governance in the Northwest Territories and the growing number of experiments with participatory budgeting in Brazil, Denmark and the U.K.
Poised for a civic revolution
But they also have a gold standard close at hand: in 2004, British Columbia convened its first citizens' assembly to examine electoral reform. Shortly after, a second citizens' assembly was convened in Ontario.
Resembling a royal commission or policy jury, the citizens' assemblies demonstrate the capacity and willingness of citizens to play an expanded and more sophisticated role in public affairs.
Without a party, progressive populists are focusing their attention on the space between elections, devising new and better ways to work with citizens to build legitimacy for original solutions.
Despite declining voter turnout, progressive populists don't believe in civic apathy. The problem, they say, isn't that government asks too much of citizens, it's that it asks too little. They believe people want a say but are also willing to serve.
Coupled with the tandem efforts of those pioneering new systems for online collaboration, a civic revolution in policy making powered by public participation is set to begin.
Related Tyee stories:
- Yes He Can
Obama's no radical, but he's been empowered by his fellow citizens to do big things. - Polling to the People!
We pay vast sums so parties can poll. Their findings should be made public. - 'Change' Wins in Vancouver
Now the hard part. What will 'change' mean? Notes from last night's landslide.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
anarcho
01-01-2009
It is time for popular power!
It is about time that the wave of progressive populism struck Canada. It has been rolling over Latin America for the last 5 years and replacing oligarchic regimes with governments that seek to empower the populace - think of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador - and to a lesser extent, but still in keeping with the trend, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina.
squishy
01-01-2009
The problem...
is that I don't believe people, as a whole, are really willing to serve as well as wanting to have a say. Which makes progressive populism a Trojan horse, however unwitting, for traditional elite-based progressive thinking in the continuing power struggle against neoconservatism.
dorothy
01-01-2009
Squishy
I have an impression you are saying something important here, but it is not clear enough to me what you mean. Please bear with me and explain a bit more expansively, why it is a trojan horse: who are the Danes bringing it, and who are the Aecheans inside, and what exactly is it they will do when they reveal thmselves?
'traditional elite-based progressive thinking' does not compute with me; could you give an example of one of its results?
Thank you for your anticipated perseverance in this.
ME2
01-01-2009
There's no demand for change yet
As I recall, Harcourt pursued serious exploration of citizen participation in gov't procedures with his CORE (Commission On Resources and Environment) process.
Before Harcourt, the Socreds had instituted Local and Regional Resource Use Plans to cover all areas of the Province. Hundreds of people volunteered years of their time to see these extremely detailed and complex plans completed.
And Campbell's Citizen's Assembly on Voting Reform was totally out-of-step with his gov't's style, which is elitist to its very core.
So while the desire of the citizen for gov't accountability is clearly acknowledged, what is even more certain is that few, if any, of our gov'ts are willing to give up very much power.
What is equally obvious is that there are very few citizens willing to demand that they do so.
realisticman
02-01-2009
Change?
As the writer says; "...(The) gold standard (is) close at hand: in 2004, British Columbia convened its first citizens' assembly to examine electoral reform."
The Liberals of BC and Gordon Campbell would have accepted voting reform had it passed a vote but the referendum failed with only 57.7% of votes in favour, instead of the required 60%.
Contrary to what 'squishy' says, this was not a, "continuing power struggle against neoconservatism." but rather, this was not supported by a mainly left-wing group of NDP supporters.
It was only three years ago and that's a bit soon to be re-writing history.
BrianWhite
02-01-2009
"only 57.7% of votes in favour" so it fails!
Has anyone any clue about democracy here? Or do you all just believe what Campbell says?
You allow 42.3% to beat 57.7%!!!!
What planet are you on?
If you believe in one person one vote 42.3% cannot beat 57.7% under ANY circumstances in a referendum.
Its basic math and basic democracy.
If Campbell had said "if you vote yes you get 2/3 of a vote and if you vote no you get a full vote", would you have accepted what he said?
Well it is EXACTLY the same thing.
50%+1 vote is a win in a referendum. It follows DIRECTLY from 1 person 1 vote.
Basic math.
Anything else is morally bankrupt.
Ask any math teacher.
realisticman
02-01-2009
Variations
It's not necessarily quite so simple Brian.
VALIDITY OF REFERENDUM: THRESHOLD OF VOTES CAST
Any proposition contained in a referendum to which section 99(1) applies shall be considered to have been carried only if—
1. (a) an absolute majority of those voting cast their ballots in favour of the proposition; and
2. (b) those voting in favour of the proposition constitute at least 40 per cent. of those eligible to vote.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed the issue rather late at night in Committee and we are now discussing it even later at night on Report. For that reason, I do not propose to go into great detail on the arguments for a threshold requirement for referendums.
800
§ The basic argument is fairly straightforward. In parliamentary elections, we elect candidates for a set period. In referendums we have often been asked to approve something that is intended to be in place permanently. We know that we can turn candidates out of office, but there is no mechanism for triggering a referendum to overturn the result of an earlier referendum.
§ Referendums are qualitatively distinctive. They are not on a par with elections to public office. Imposing a threshold would ensure that a substantial proportion of the population was required to turn out and support a proposition. It would prevent an active minority determining the outcome.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2000/nov/21/validity-of-referendum-threshold-of
According to the EU rules, more than half of registered voters must turn out and more than 55 per cent of ballots must support independence from Serbia in order for the union to be dissolved.
The so-called Danish model, whereby a referendum decision is valid if more than 40 per cent of registered voters turn out.
01/06/2005 - 16:25:42
The turnout in the Dutch referendum on the European constitution passed 30% today, the threshold set by political parties for accepting the public’s verdict as legitimate, Dutch broadcasters reported.
Research shows that there are many variables and there are good arguments for all sides. Ontario struggled with the 60% rule too. PEI followed BC with 60% too.
Perhaps first there should be a referendum on what the threshold should be but that becomes a chicken and egg thing.
realisticman
02-01-2009
By the way Brian
I presume you know that Gordon Campbell was not exactly overjoyed that the previous referendum failed, although by your tone I'm not sure you do know.
Upon re-election, Premier Gordon Campbell pledged that there was a clear mandate for electoral reform, and although the STV referendum did not pass, he would explore other possible voting reform options during his second term.
The Gordon Campbell government is including another referendum on STV on the next ballot and there will be vote on this in BC in four months time.
rangergord
04-01-2009
STV Opposition
Both the NDP and the Liberals are opposed to real electoral reform. The STV would be an improvement over what we have now but it is not likely to be perfect. I voted for it the last time and will do so again. Then I will vote for someone other than the NDP.