OwlEye

Memorandum on Terror

2006-05-26T20:33:00.001-05:00

[Note: This is a paper in response to a paper question for a class as part of the MPA program at Queen's University. The memorandum is entirely fictional and does not represent Canadian government policy in any way. The question being answered is:
One of the most difficult issues to come to grips with is the “root causes” of terrorism. Some consider the whole idea of causes as a cop-out. Former Prime Minister Mulroney said that the root cause of terrorism is terrorists. Prime Minister Chrétien maintained, on the other hand, that the inexorable encroachment of the West, especially the US, on others was bound to produce “push-back”. The world’s response to terrorism has tended to focus on “hard” instruments, i.e., the military, intelligence services and the public security agencies. Effective “soft” responses have lagged behind, allowing conditions that incubate terrorists to persist. Diverse factors are in play, ranging from poverty and falling standards of living in the Muslim world, to resentment of Western values, culture and power, to extremist religious ideologies, to failing and failed states, to repressive regimes, to unresolved conflicts, particularly those involving Muslim populations, to U S foreign policy in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and the US’s apparent unconditional support for Israel. Terrorism recruitment efforts benefit from behaviour that can be portrayed as discriminatory, anti-Muslim or embodying double standards. The US has tended to see terrorism as monolithic: a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, with the unintended consequence of aligning itself with countries that it might rather not have as allies, for example the Russians as they brutalize the Chechens and the Chinese as they repress the Uighurs, etc. Such a monolithic approach also makes it more difficult to shape policies that depend for their success on disaggregation, differentiation and dealing with root causes. Some experts are counseling the Minister to speak openly and frankly about the issues’ complexity and to advocate greater attention to root causes. The Minister is worried that doing so might make him appear naive and might irritate senior people in Washington. He has asked for your advice on what to do. What would you advise him to do in the circumstances?]

XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Strategic Policy Division
613-123-7645

UNCLASSIFIED

May 26, 2006

Action Memorandum for:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs

ISSUE: Whether and how the Minister should incorporate the consideration and discussion of the ‘root causes’ of terrorism into its public communications

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

Begin to discuss the root causes of terror when speaking internationally and dealing with foreign governments, regardless of the position that our allies take on the validity of such topics.
Encourage and facilitate research into the causes of terrorism around the world in order to gain a deeper understanding of those factors. This research would then be able to provide a foundation for better understanding how to conduct counter-terror campaigns and as a basis for international discussions on the subject.
Continue to support military solutions against existing terrorist organizations both in words and actions, despite the incorporation of root causes into discussions. Such considerations cannot be allowed to eclipse the hard-power component of counter-terrorism discourse, but instead should supplement the overall discussion.

BACKGROUND:
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the declaration of the global ‘War on Terror,’ the United States has focused its energies on the defeat and destruction of terrorist organizations worldwide. The American public, led by their government, quickly concluded that the foundation for terrorist activities was a basic hatred of their fundamental liberties.[1] This allowed for swift and decisive military action against Afghanistan, but the absolute characterization of all terrorists, regardless of their background and motivation, as evil and immoral has prevented any differentiation between terror organizations or attempts to understand the underlying causes of terrorism. This has led to the belief that the cause of terrorism is terrorists, and that the only solution is their capture or death. This hard-power approach is encapsulated in the ‘War on Terror.’
There has been some acknowledgement by the United States that other factors must be addressed in order to ultimately prevail against terrorism, specifically surrounding poverty issues and failed states.[2] An attempt to encourage economic development and ameliorate the living conditions of disenfranchised people around the world has become the second prong of the American anti-terror strategy.[3] Aside from poverty, any attempt to explain or consider other factors in the development of terror has been characterized as naïve or dismissed outright by the American government. Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s contention that western encroachment in the Middle East was at least partially responsible for the response was met with hostility from the White House and helped sour the Canadian-American bilateral relationship.
Academia has generally accepted this dual conception of terrorism, with the bulk of research in the area focused on the military capabilities and strategies of terrorists, rather than on their motivations and goals.[4] However, recent research has begun to indicate that both the military and anti-poverty approaches to counterterrorism may be less effective than previously thought and have begun to suggest other strategies that may be more successful in addressing and weakening the foundations of support for terrorism, as well as directly countering the effectiveness and capabilities of terrorist groups.[5]
The logic of the War on Terror and its conception of terrorism compels the United States to engage militarily with terrorists in an attempt to absolutely defeat them.[6] Unfortunately, history suggests that a purely military response may not just be ineffective in defeating terrorism, but may in fact prolong the conflict, as seen in Chechnya, Israel-Palestine and Sri Lanka, due to the entrenchment of hatred on both sides. Furthermore, the War on Terror has encouraged allies in order to move militarily against terrorists, and legitimized the repression of internal dissent in countries such as Russia/Chechnya, Uzbekistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt.[7] One of the recent conclusions proposed by research is that it is repressive authoritarian states, not failed states, which foster terrorist movements around the world, as well as adding credibility to the claim of American double-standards around the world.[8] A more nuanced understanding of terrorism may suggest that such alliances of convenience are in fact counterproductive, and it is in the interests of both the United States and Canada to discuss and confirm this one way or another as early as possible.
It is also becoming increasingly evident that focusing the soft-power approach on poverty reduction may also be less effective than a holistic consideration of a broad set of factors that contribute to terrorism. Research has begun to indicate that the assumed link between poverty and terrorism is much weaker than previously thought. Recent studies of Hezbollah and Palestinian resistance groups suggest that terrorists are more likely to have higher educational and income levels than the average, with support for resistance enjoying greater support amongst the more affluent members of society.[9] These studies have gone so far as to argue that education and income may be positively correlated with membership in terrorist organizations. As such, a poverty reduction strategy that does not address the other causes of terrorism, such as the preponderance of Islamist education in the madresas, may actually have the potential to increase terrorism.[10]

CONSIDERATIONS:
Terrorism is not merely a threat to American security; it is also a Canadian concern, especially with Canadian troops active in Afghanistan. This means that if Canada identifies ways to address terrorism and improve our security, it is important that they be pursued. Research has indicated a number of alternative causes of terrorism, most of which would suggest an alternative response to military force. It would be contrary to our national interest not to at least explore these ideas and to challenge whether the current global approach is the most appropriate means to combat terror.
This discussion must be balanced against one of the other pillars of Canadian national security, the strength and reliability of our alliance with the United States. It is clear that the American government will be annoyed by such considerations, especially if they perceive it to undermine their position and legitimacy.[11] As such, Canada must take care to consider the subject in a manner that will minimize the negative response while still being able to discuss these ideas fully.
This will require that Canada continues to fully support the military aspect of counterterrorism activities, and not allow the discussion of root causes to be interpreted as a sign of weakness by the Bush Administration. Furthermore, such a discussion cannot replace our current discourse, but must rather supplement it. Without undermining the legitimacy of the discussion, the need to ensure that such discussions not be interpreted as weak or anti-American, it may need to avoid root causes that may be seen as attacks on the United States. This would include criticisms of American foreign policy and its impact on the perceptions of Muslim populations, and should instead focus on the more positive steps that can be taken to address root causes, such as addressing frustrated expectations and ensuring that the benefits of globalization are evenly spread throughout the world. Broaching the more sensitive topics would be more appropriate in private, or left until such discourse achieves broader legitimacy.
Regardless of current belief, research demonstrates that terrorists are not psychopathic or sociopathic.[12] In dealing with terrorism, we are facing a rational opponent which has chosen to use suicide terrorism as its preferred tactic.[13] It has been able to develop recruiting methods that allow it to convince otherwise educated and intelligent young men and women to kill themselves for a cause.[14] The only way to win the war on terrorism is not to eliminate the use of terror, as that is impossible, but instead eliminate the ability for organizations such as al-Qaeda to threaten us, which is possible. This requires an approach which targets the conditions which allow organizations such as al-Qaeda to exist, not just to kill as many terrorists as possible. This is an important distinction: there do not seem to be specific conditions that produce terrorists, as if there were, suicide terrorism would be much more widespread. Instead, it is necessary to target the conditions that allow for the success of terrorist organizations. We will not defeat terrorism relying solely on military strength, which may even exacerbate the conflict. A resolution to this conflict can only come through wining the battle of ideas.[15] An understanding that these individuals are rational provides hope that a solution is possible, but undermines the ability to use military force. As such, our approach to this discussion must be cautious and measured.
The type of policy approach that research has indicated might be effective could include:[16]

increased support for education projects in high-risk nations, specifically designed to challenge the monopoly over socialization enjoyed by the madresas
addressing the population pressures of third world nations, which, if left unchecked, will produce increasingly large youth populations in high-risk nations whose current standard of living will only be able to be maintained through very high economic growth rates, which are unlikely
increased public advocacy and support for moderate Muslim voices, as well as an attempt to foster greater understanding and respect for Islam domestically
a greater focus on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, a move which may necessitate broader international participation beyond just the current group of four
other policies which have been, and will continue to be, identified by research

Taken together, this suggests that Canada should begin to publicly discuss the ‘root causes’ of terrorism, but to do so in a manner which is subtle and measured, designed as a balance between our interest in fully exploring these issues and ensuring that our response is as complete and effective as possible, while not angering our American allies any more than is necessary. If we are able to effectively find this balance, our ability to cope with the current terrorist threat may be significantly improved, and will have the side-effect of increasing our credibility throughout the Muslim world, through an honest attempt to understand and respond to their grievances.[17] By approaching them as partners in finding a solution to extreme Islamists as opposed to members of a barbaric and backward religion, we may be able to recapture our position as an effective and trusted international mediator. It is in Canada’s national interest, as well as in line with our values, to begin to incorporate such ideas into international discourse, and we should begin immediately.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS:
Some initial funding will be necessary to support research into the root causes of terrorism. Once such research gains greater acceptance in the academic community, its momentum should limit the amount of long-term funding that would be required.

COMMUNICATIONS IMPLICATIONS:
There may be opposition to this new strategy from the American administration, politicians and the public, who may see Canada as soft on terrorism. This could have consequences for a variety of Canadian interests, especially if this perception is reinforced in Congress.

COMMUNICATIONS ACTIONS:
Perceptions of weakness can be addressed by a clear explanation of the purpose behind the choice to begin this discussion and how it can be used to improve and assist the war on terror.
Other than countering charges of weakness, the only actions that are required are the inclusion of ‘root causes’ into the language and reasoning of press releases, speeches and other communications activities.

PARLIAMENTARY IMPLICATIONS:

NIL

[1] Government of the United States (2003). “National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.” February 2003: 4. Available: .

[2] Berrebi, Claude. “Evidence about the link between education, poverty and terrorism among Palestinians.” September 2003. Princeton University Industrial Relations Section Working Paper No. 477. Available <http://ssrn.com/abstract=487467>.

[3] Government of the United States (2003). “National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.” February 2003: 23. Available: .

[4] Purdy, Margaret (2004). “Briefing Note – Issue: What could an L-20 do to address the issue of terrorism’s root causes.” Prepared for The Nexus of Terrorism and WMDs: Developing a Consensus conference, Princeton University, 12-14 Dec 2004: 7. Available: purdy.pdf>.

[5] Krueger, Alan B. & Jitka Maleckova (2002). “The economics and the education of suicide bombers: Does poverty cause terrorism?” The New Republic, 24 Jun 2002. Available: .

[6] Atran, Scott (2004). “Mishandling Suicide Terrorism.” The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2004. Vol. 27, No. 3: pp. 67-90. 73.

[7] Kapitan, Tomis (2003). “The Terrorism of ‘Terrorism’.” In James Sterba, ed., Terrorism and International Justice, Oxford, 47-66: 60.

[8] One oft-made claim is that America supports human rights and democracy only when it suits their interests while propping up authoritarian regimes. This damages American credibility and undermines their ability to alleviate the situations in those countries due to a lack of trust.

[9] Von Hippel, Karin (2002). “The Roots of Terrorism: Probing the Myths.” The Political Quarterly, August 2002. Vol. 73: pp. 25-39.

[10] It has been argued that terrorism is distinguishable from the traditional economic poverty argument concerning crime. Instead of supporting the hypothesis that individuals with higher wealth have more to lose and will be less likely to commit terrorist actions, researchers have suggested that higher educational levels allow for higher levels of politicization and more time to commit to a cause. The worry then becomes that poverty reduction strategies that do not address underlying grievances will merely create a larger pool of educated and politicized individuals. This seems to hold true for all terrorist organizations outside of Kashmir, including European organizations such as the Red Army Faction, Direct Action and Red Brigades as well as Asian groups such as Aum Shinrykio. For further discussion, see: Von Hippel, Krueger & Maleckova and others.

[11] Ehrlich, Paul R. & Jianguo Liu (2002). “Some roots of Terrorism.” Population and Environment, November 2002. Vol. 24, No. 2: 183-192.

[12] Federal Research Division, Library of Congress (1999). “The sociology and psychology of terrorism: Who becomes a terrorist and why?” September 1999. Available: <http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Sociology-Psychology%20of%20Terrorism.htm>.

[13] Gearson, John (2002). “The Nature of Modern Terrorism.” in Lawrence Freedman, ed., Superterrorism: Policy Responses. Blackwell: Oxford, 2002. Available: . 23.

[14] Atran, Scott (2004). “Mishandling Suicide Terrorism.” The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2004. Vol. 27, No. 3: pp. 67-90. 73.

[15] Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World. “Changing Minds, Winning Peace.” 1 Oct 2003, Available: .

[16] Purdy, Margaret (2004). “Briefing Note – Issue: What could an L-20 do to address the issue of terrorism’s root causes.” Prepared for The Nexus of Terrorism and WMDs: Developing a Consensus conference, Princeton University, 12-14 Dec 2004: 7. Available: purdy.pdf>.

[17] Wanandi, Jusuf (2002). “A Global Coalition against International Terrorism.” International Security, Spring 2002. Vol. 26, No. 4: pp. 184-189. 188.

OwlEye is Back!

2006-05-22T00:28:00.000-05:00

After a year's hiatus, Owleye is finally back. I suffered a combination of a lost password and a heavy courseload, and never had the time to find the necessary info.

But I'm nearly done my Master's and needed to take a quick break from my last paper, so I tracked down a couple old email addresses and rediscovered my account info. I still have three more years to finish law, but I have the first graduate degree under my belt, and can't imagine that school continues at the same pace as it has.

So look forward to more from OwlEye in the near future as the blog should be active again.

A few promising signs...

2005-01-19T04:00:00.000-05:00

I mentioned a few days ago that there were signs that the Democrats were starting to regain their composure about the Iraqi war and the recent election. Nancy Pelosi made very strong statements about the missing WMDs, while Edward Kennedy and others questioned the nominee for the Attourney-General Alberto Gonzales on his legal memos which provided legal justification for abandoning the Geneva Conventions, and possibly laying the groundwork for a series of reported abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib prisons.

Now, we have another prominent democrat taking a stand. In the confirmation hearings for Condoleeza Rice, Barbara Boxer finally asked some of the right questions about Iraq. While certainly not surprising questions, it was satisfying to see a member of the Administration finally being held to account for some of the sketchy quotes, misleading statements and claims during the lead-up to the war. I won't provide further analysis, as the transcript speaks for itself. I applaud Sen. Boxer, and encourage the democrats to further press the Administration to answer some of those vital questions.

Computer Healthy Again

2005-01-18T16:42:00.000-05:00

I now know how to fix power supplies.

Computer on the Fritz

2005-01-16T18:56:00.000-05:00

My power supply broke down the other night, so I am currently computerless. As such, I will likely not have the opportunity to post for a number of days. Sorry about the absence.

Sharon Snubs Abbas

2005-01-15T00:00:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the most recent Gaza bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has cut off all contact with the newly elected Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. In the wake of the Palestinian election, many observers had hoped that with the newly elected moderate and pragmatic Abbas, Israel would be able to re-open negotiations with the beleaguered Palestinian Authority.

I should stop to mention the possibility that this move by Israel is possibly an attempt to strengthen Abu Mazen. With cease-fire talks upcoming between Abbas and the various Palestinian factions, isolating the new leader may be seen as a way for Israel to distance themselves. Too close of a relationship could undermine Abbas' newfound legitimacy with his people. However, this seems unlikely, for a couple reasons. First, the threats and demands are reminiscent of the threats and demands of several months ago to Arafat, and the threats seem unnecessarily harsh if they are just intended to create distance between the two parties.

Instead, I believe that this move speaks volumes about the Likud committment to peace. Sharon's main justification for cutting off peace negotiations and embarking on the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip was that there was no credible Palestinian partner. Now that a moderate who is on record opposing the intifada is President, you would think that such a partner would have arrived. Instead, the Israelis are undermining the legitimacy of the new President, much in the same way as they undermined both Abbas' and Qureia's Prime Ministerships under Arafat. It is almost as if they do not want to see a strengthened Palestinian Authority - and it is hard it strengthen your corrupt government when your new President has not even been inaugurated before the first checkpoints in and out of the territories have been closed.

Peace will take effort on both sides, but also understanding. Abbas cannot possibly hope to control the various factions of Palestinian militants within a week of his election, and Israel's reaction is certainly not making it any easier. If Israel is serious about Abbas reigning in militants instead of simply undermining the peace process, then they should stop building and remove the more problematic west bank settlements. By giving Abu Mazen even a small symbolic victory, they would do much to strengthen his hand at home. That would truly determine Sharon's commitment to peace. Unfortunately, all Sharon has done is further weaken the Palestinian government, and therefore to strengthen the factions.

Missing WMD Report - MIA

2005-01-13T03:01:00.000-05:00

As a continuation of yesterday's comments, it now seems that CNN.com has dropped off of their front page. You now need to go into the "World Politics" section to see it as part of "MORE NEWS" alongside the story that grateful US surfers are helping tsunami victims. Heartwarming, but not of the same magnitude.

I still am curious to see whether this story will gain any traction in the U.S. Maybe when the actual report is released a few more heads will turn. But until that point, I will remain disappointed.

Thus Ends the Debacle

2005-01-12T23:00:00.000-05:00

Before continuing, I'd like to thank Norman Spector for the interesting discussion that we had following my last post. I have no idea how much free time editorialists have, but I enjoyed the exchange very much. While neither of us convinced the other (nor did I expect that to happen), I think I, at least, came away with a much better understanding of the motivations and reasoning behind those who oppose STV. And its important that the case against STV be made, and made well, as any change as fundamental as this deserves full, complete, and honest public debate, and thats something that I am sure Spector will be at the forefront of. As for me, I will be just as vocal on the other side, especially as the election in BC approaches.

On to my main subject, one of the most unsurprising, yet at the same time mystifying, reports that I've heard in a while. I'm talking about the admission by the Bush administration that no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq. Duelfer is coming home, and he is "not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report." This is surprise, as we all knew that if the US had found even a smidgeon of the most basic chemical weapon ingredients, it would have been shouted loudly from the top of every rooftop in America (or at least the roof of the White House). But at the same time, it was quite evident that if nothing was found in the first year, it likely was not there. Iraq is a big place, but not that big. And if your pre-war intelligence tells you where it is, your task should be made at least slightly simpler.

What is most dissapointing, however, is the completely lack of coverage by the mainstream American media. It mystifies me that something so vital as the fundamental premise for a foreign war of choice should be neglected. After seeing the initial article in the Globe and Mail, I immediately checked CNNs website for the domestic reaction. But the story was not there. It took hours to show up, and now sits as the #2 "World News" story, just after Jakarta toughens aid restrictions, which, while admittedly an interesting and important story, probably should supercede misleading a nation to war. The report is not even one of the top 10 stories on the page. The report does not appear on the front page of MSNBC, and FOX News currently has it listed as its 7th story, which compared to the others, is respectable.

I can only hope that I am overreacting early and that the major news networks will pick up the report soon.

In good news, democrats might start to stand up to the President for misleading America and the world about his casus belli. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, has demanded an explanation from the President about his use of false intelligence. Good work to Pelosi, and lets hope that other leading democrats are able to join the call. With enough pressure, it is possible that some questions might be answered.

Unlikely, but that is no reason not to try.

Single Transferable Everything - A Response to Norman Spector

2005-01-11T00:30:00.000-05:00

Reading the Globe and Mail today, I came across a Norman Spector article entitled Single transferable nonsense. As a long-time student of electoral systems and supporter of the STV model of elections, I decided to respond as best I could to the arguments made against the system. I find myself in the strange position of disagreeing with Mr. Spector, a commentator whose opinions often closely match my own. This article is not designed to attack Spector in any way, but instead to respond to his arguments, which I think represent much of the main arguments against this form of Proportional Representation. I'll be addressing the main arguments one by one.

1) Nobody has ever done it before

Have I mentioned that STV supporters are asking us to try on for size the voting system used by only one of the Commonwealth's 53 countries? Now, it's possible that 400,000 Maltese know something the other 1.8 billion inheritors of British political traditions haven't yet grasped, but I wonder.

Spector begins his editorial by raising a valid concern, the limited resume of STV. Unlike other electoral models, few countries have adopted STV, and it is true that many haven't done it very well. But if we are going to look to the rest of the world for inspiration for our electoral system, we must keep a few ideas in mind. Let us remember that we are only one of four countries who use a pure first past the post (FPTP) single member plurality (SMP) electoral system. Other countries, have since discarded this system once they realized its limitations and failings. In terms of world opinion, we are already lagging behind the pack.

It is also important to note that the British system was not exported uniformly across the Commonwealth. Instead, the system that a country inherited is tied to how early the colony was granted responsible government. Canada was one of the first to democratize (in 1848), and adopted the first form of Responsible Government created, virtually the same system we still enjoy today. Countries democratizing later adopted further electoral refinements as they were developed. Given that we have been using the current system for over 160 years, and that our societal composition, levels of education and means of communication have changed substantially since its inception, one could argue that its long past time that our system was allowed to evolve to meet these new realities.

Another thing that we should note is that Canada has always been a democratic pioneer. Canada gained responsible government only shortly after Britain, and this adventurous spirit invariably met with similar concerns as today. Commentators might have warned that responsible government would lead to anarchy, that it would invite American-style populist, democratic excesses or any other concern imaginable. Yet the experiment went ahead, despite having few other nations as models. In retrospect, it is likely safe to say that this experiment was mildly successful.

Just because nobody has tried it before, does not invalidate an idea. If we always shied away from new things, society would never develop. And I prefer my apartment to a fireless cave.

2) STV is Complicated

Proponents of this Rube Goldberg voting system say it's as simple as 1-2-3, but they're unable to explain how STV would work in practice.

Nobody is going to argue that STV is not complex. While some might argue that simplicity is a virtue, there are serious problems with oversimplifying something as inherently complex as voting. Many of the current problems with the current system can be traced to its inability to accurately reflect society or and its diverse interests and needs. I cannot comment on the inability of other STV proponents to adequately describe the system. The system isn't complex, except for one key idea - the magical number. Even that is fairly straightforward. In a nutshell, the system allows electors to rank candidates based on preference. When counting, all the first place votes are compared. If the magical number (calculated by [[valid ballots/[number of seats + 1]]+1]) is reached by any candidate, then they are elected, and their redistributed proportionately across the remaining candidates. This continues until no candidate reaches the number, at which point the bottom candidate is dropped, and their next place votes counted. This continues until all the seats are filled. Definitely more complex then the current system, but not rocket science.

It should be noted that once the delegates to the constituent assembly understood the STV system, they overwhelmingly supported it. I would hope that we would give the BC electorate the same opportunity.

As well, complexity is not necessarily a negative characteristic of an electoral system. Complexity is necessary to better represent Canadians, and the trick is in finding the balance between as proportional a system as possible, and how difficult it is to understand. The simplest political system would be to reappoint a King and leave governing to a select few, but we chose long ago to reject such a model in favour of the complexities of Democracy. Allow the system to be as accurate and as fair as possible, and trust that Canadians will be more than capable of rising to the challenge.

3) Other Interests desire STV

STV advocates contend that only one country uses the system because it transfers power from politicians and parties to the people. I smell other interests at play.

I'm not going to press the point about STV weakening parties (note weakening, not destroying), as I feel it is self-evident as one of the primary features of STV. What I am going to address is the idea that other interests. I don't know the specific interests Spector is referring to, but the implication is that these interests are negative, and do not have the best interests of Canada at heart. This is made clear in the implicitly suggestion that it is the religious right who wish this change in order to push their agenda.

It is obvious that there are interests involved in the STV debate, just as there are interests supporting the status quo. The business lobby loves the focused power centers of the current system which allow them to better able to influence key decision-makers. Our two major parties, both of whom have adopted relatively similar political stances, have created their own networks of interests, most of whom are insidious in their own unique way. In place of the corporate lobbyists, the interests supporting STV are those of average citizens who wish to regain the trust that they have lost in the system, as well as academics and other interested parties who have been promoting these ideas for years. If these interests coincide with those of the religious right, that does not taint the idea itself, but instead shows that the impetus for it is broad-based and crosses ideological lines. While Nick Loenen may have hidden motives, I would argue that if 15% of BC's electorate support his ideas, then they should be represented with 15% of the seats in the legislature, regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

(note: 15% is an entirely fictional number designed to make a point.)

4) STV will lead to minority governments, and this gives unbalanced power to fringe parties.

Like all proportional voting systems, STV produces minority governments. In the inevitable negotiation of a coalition that inevitably follows, the largest party normally gets together with third, fourth or even fifth parties.

This is an interesting claim, especially given the current state of our Federal Parliament where it seems that minority parliaments are in many ways superior to majorities. The problem with the argument that PR empowers small groups is that it is anti-democratic in nature. The fundamental idea of the representative system is to construct coalitions that represent a majority of electors. In the past this has been done by individual parties who broker within their ranks to provide a "deal" to distribute resources and power, assisted by an electoral system that creates majorities where none exist.

If two groups of interests are similar and can come to a consensus over a shared agenda and this represents a majority of Canadians, how does that undermine democracy? Coalition partners are responsible for the other parties in the government, preventing minority parliaments from turning radical. The more radical ideas will not generate support. Instead, more moderate policies will be adopted, such as the informal coalition that produced national Medicare. In effect, coalitions create public majorities which Canadians can judge and vote on, instead of the closed-door deals that the major parties have been constructing for over a century. I have much more faith in the first model, and faith in the ability of Canadians to ensure that their parties do not succumb to radicalism.

Giving unbalanced power to minorities is certainly nothing new to Canada, either, as this is exactly what the current system does. When our FTPT SMP system allows minorities to elect sizable majorities, we already have a situation where we are giving unreasonable influence to certain groups. When you consider how few Canadians vote, partly due to the system itself, our majority governments begin to appear as merely minorities within minorities. Instead of pretending that the current system does not distort popular opinion, Canada should accept that dealing with competing minorities is an inherent part of our society and create a system that allows these minorities to interact in a balanced and fair system.

5) Political Parties are necessary for our Democracy

I'll grant you we've had a few doozies of our own out here. Nevertheless, political parties have been one of the few mechanisms that bridge our differences and make B.C. society work.

Nobody is arguing about this. Canadians have said time and time again that they need parties to structure their politics. The question that STV asks, though, is not whether we should or should not have parties. It instead asks about the value of strong parties. Adopting STV will not abolish parties, but will merely loosen the stranglehold they current have on our system. Canadian democracy was never designed to have strong parties. The initial proponents of the system worried about strong parties, but felt that the nature of the Parliamentary system would hold back party powers. Instead, it has been the parties who have restricted the development of our democracy. Weakening their hold over nominations, access to funding, senate appointments, cabinet appointments, judicial appointments, executive appointments and other such powers will not destroy our system, but rather to give it a bit of air. STV forces MPs and MLAs to be responsive to their constituents, rather than to the party, and does not allow the parties to control who citizens have the chance to vote for. We will still need to aggregate opinion, to organize assemblies, to allow easy identification of political positions, and to form governments. Parties will continue to do all that. They will simply cease to control the entire process.

6) Fixed Election Dates and similar changes are bad

Fixed election dates are just one of the ideas, foreign to British Parliamentary tradition, that have recently been imported into our political system.

I agree with this sentiment entirely and strongly oppose Fixed Election Dates. Why? Because they change the fundamental nature of our political system. They distort our responsible government and allow parties to always be aware of the next election date, and to focus on it instead of governance. We will move from five week campaigns to the four year Presidential campaigns in the States. Opposing FEDs does not mean that the current system is perfect. It is definitely not in the best interests of democracy to have the first minister able to call snap elections on a whim. But restrictions on this ability, such as requiring the legislature to agree with dissolution, would accomplish the same goal without undermining the system. STV, however, does no such thing. The method of selecting representatives is entirely separate from the Parliamentary system. Even picking legislators by random lot would be consistent within the Westminster Parliamentary system, so long as it was done at dissolution, and a new set of members showed up a few months later.

Changes that undermine the system are negative, but that does not make all change negative. STV does not change the parliamentary system, it modifies the electoral system, a system which has changed numerous times, even in England.

7) Nick Loenen is crazy

Indeed, Nick Loenen and Premier Bill Vander Zalm were seat-mates in the two-member Richmond riding and soul mates on several controversial issues.

Fair enough, I concede this point.

But I have read Loenen's book that Spector refers to, and regardless of his social and religious positions, it is well-researched and well-argued. In fact, I was not even aware of his political leanings, nor did I care. As I said earlier, the support of an issue by crazy Nick Loenen does not invalidate it, nor does its support by crazy lefties undermine it. In a lot of ways, it strengthens it, due to the broad base of support.

Alternatively, it is entirely possible that Nick Loenen may have had an epiphany after leaving government and is now a committed socialist, working tirelessly towards justice and equality, and received his information about STV in a dream, and that this is not a malignant plot by the religious right to undermine our governmental institutions. This is unlikely, but goes to show that the personal backgrounds of the proponents of an electoral system is entirely irrelevant to the qualities and characteristics of its proponents. If the system is good, it should not matter if Loenen is crazy or not.

8) Better solution is to realign with Westminster

The better route to counter the friendly and not-so-friendly dictatorships that we've seen in Canada would be to align our system with the mother of parliaments at Westminster. More free votes, relaxed party discipline and a coequal role for caucus and the party in selecting the leader have worked wonders.

All three of these suggestions are solid ideas for us to import into Canadian political models, and I commend Spector for raising them. But they are entirely separate from our electoral system. In fact, their adoption is likely impeded by the current electoral system. The reason that these do not exist today is that they dilute centralized party power, and this is anathema to certain Ottawa "interests." How can the PM control the agenda if his party is allowed to vote freely? If we wish to see such changes within Parliament, we either require a significant philosophical reorientation inside parties, or a changed political landscape that forces them to evolve.

STV embodies the type of change that we need. In the absence of a perfect system in a perfect world, this system is not only the best we have, it also meets the needs of Canadians. It is hard to expect much more than that.

And this article has not even mention the overwhelming positives that STV and PR provide, such as higher voter turnout, renewed political interest, freer legislators, and an invigorated Assembly. However you look at it, STV is a potentially vital new idea for Canadian democracy.

Non-Profit Better?

2005-01-10T15:30:00.001-05:00

A new study has come out today from the U of T economics department that compares the quality of for-profit and non-profit child-care. Given the increased Canadian focus on this issue, it is not surprising that such questions have entered the national consciousness. The federal liberals have committed themselves to national childcare, and now need to be told how to go about doing it.

Nobody should be surprised about the contents of this report. In short, it suggests that non-profit centers are on average significant better accross the board then their for-profit counterparts. This corroborates past reports that have suggested the same, that the profit-motive is not sufficient to ensure quality care. In a system governed by profit and the realities of the business world, it is hard to fault for-profit day-care centers who cut corners, hire less qualified staff, and reduce their standards of care in countless ways. It is hard to fault these centers because those are the actions that the system provides incentives to take. This would suggest that Canadians need to make a choice - do we want efficient, market-driven childcare? Or do we want a high level of care for our children? I'd hope that we'd choose the latter, and realize that the invisible hand does not work best in all situations. For something as basic as child-care, we must look beyond the idea that competition is the most likely stimula towards quality, and instead accept that it is caring, professional staff who will do the most to create the best environment for children. And pay them well - the job is hard and they deserve it.

This also forces us to look at the bigger picture. Childcare is a microcosm for care-giving generally, including pharmacare, homecare and medicare. We have identified that quality of service is lower when the profit motive compels businesses to cut corners in order to improve the bottom line. This is no different for health care, where corners abound. Let us ensure that we protect our standards of health. The solution to health issues such as childcare, or medicare isn't privatization, but instead discovering a new model that allows us to use public dollars more effectively, and to maximize their contribution to the common good.

Voter Apathy and the Political Process

2005-01-10T04:30:00.000-05:00

This is an article written during the 2004 Canadian Federal Election in an effort to escape the mind-numbing campaign that was being run by all the major parties. Though inspired by the events of that election, as well as prior research done on the subject, it was designed to consider elections generally, rather than that specific instance.

I do not intend to post more then a few old articles that I have written, and only do so right now to provide some content until I can start putting together new ideas and doing so regularily. Until then, I may throw in some older material, though only if I feel it is still relevant and interesting. As always, I hope you enjoy.

Voter Apathy and the Political Process (June 26, 2004)

It is clear that Canadians are unhappy about politics, as we watch the current electoral campaign play out against a backdrop of anger and cynicism about the trustworthiness and legitimacy of our politicians. This is not a recent phenomenon, and it cannot be simply explained by pointing to the scandals of the recent past, or any other single event. Voter turnout has been dropping steadily for the past forty years, while voter cynicism has been on the rise for about the same period. As such, it seems that no event or group of events could explain this type of decline. Instead, the most likely reason for this rising dissatisfaction is the evolution of Canadian society. As communication technology has improved, and as levels of education have risen, Canadian society has developed away from our Confederation-era political system, including both the party and electoral systems. These systems no longer serve our needs.

What are the political needs of Canadians? This, I believe, is the fundamental question facing our politicians and country today. The present representative system only allows Canadians to participate once every four years in the decision-making process of their country, with the opportunity to choose between competing platforms, competing candidates, competing leaders, competing parties, all with a single X on their ballot. For an increasingly politically conscious society, this is no longer sufficient, and it is only through reform of the policy development process that Canadians can be given an adequate voice in their future.

Policy development is an insulated process, taking place away from the eyes and ears of average Canadians. While parties set the broad outlines of what is acceptable, it is the internal leadership circles that design the specific electoral policy for elections. These groups are independent of both the caucus and party members meaning that very few Canadians have access to the electoral agenda, while the rest must simply react to what leaders believe they want to hear. This is evident when several Conservative MPs stray from Stephen Harper’s moderate party line, or when the Liberal Campaign chooses to focus on health care rather than fiscal management, against the wishes of many in the party.

Taken further, it seems that many of these policies are not even meant to be kept. Because they are developed for the purpose of fighting an election, they are weapons, designed to attract votes, not to be implemented. Giving as much to as many people as possible is good strategy, but as promises, they are difficult to keep once the party becomes a government. It should surprise nobody that these promises are often not kept, especially when there are five years for a government to repair the damage. This problem is especially insidious, as any party fighting an election with such policies forces the others to do the same in order to be able to compete. The system, as it exists, compels parties towards dishonest policy, and undermines political credibility. This is not a positive way for parties to develop policy.

The solution is simple. Policy development must be broad-based and accessible to the public at large; it should not be merely the election platforms of individual leaders. Extensive public consultation for legislation is one way to do this, while engaging party members in policy debates via the internet is another. Parties should develop policy outside of elections, which can then be used as their platform. If we are to reinvigorate Canadian democracy, there must be a debate about ideas, and this can only happen if the ideas on the agenda are heartfelt, honest, and practical. Reform of the system is possible, as is restoring trust in our politicians, and faith in the process, but this will only occur if Canadians are engaged in decision-making at a much deeper level than they are now. We are capable of this as citizens, but we need the opportunity to prove it.

OwlEye First Post - Welcome

2005-01-10T03:44:00.000-05:00

This is the first post of the OwlEye Blog, as I have finally decided to join the craze and publish a blog of my own. I have no idea if anybody will read this, and if they do, whether they will care, but as I already do significant amounts of writing, it makes sense to publish it in this format.

OwlEye is intended to be primarily a political blog, focusing on analysis, though it may delve into literature, philosophy, or any other interesting topic depending on mood and inspiration.

I hope to keep the blog relatively non-partisan, and while I make no apologies for my ideological tendencies (which should become clear with time), I will attempt to subsume my political stripes. I am Canadian, and while the blog should focus on Canadian politics, I also am very interested in foreign affairs, and will comment on that as well.

At all times, I welcome any and all commentary on anything I might write. I try to be open to new ideas and concepts at all time, and most of my ideas are not set in stone. If you take issue with any of the opinions expressed herein, please let me know - I will always be open to discussion.

For now, this is OwlEye - I hope that if anybody does read it, they find it enjoyable.