by

Directly Involved

I tink the Swiss may have hit the nail on the head with this one!

Granted they might have some problems in their direct democracy but is there a government that can claim it has no problems? This direct democracy means that the people of the nation can be involved in the process of making their country. I think this is an amazing idea. It connects the people to their country in a way they never dreamed possible and make the democracy what it was meant to be. It has to be said that for a system that is supposed to give power to the people Canada’s current government does not seem to be doing so. I happen to think that a government that incorporated its people is an amazing one and that with some creative thinking it could help to create more politically active and savvy youth. Creating an environment where the people have a say is a sure way to strengthen a nation. Mind you some changes from the Swiss direct democracy might have to be made as improvement is always valid but if it means a more united and sophisticated country then I am all for it!

by

Getting the Drum Going

Drummond debate

I find this little clip very interesting. It’s a perfect example of a debate in progress, obviously, and it shows the fundamental aspects of the legislature process. Now I understand why there is a legislature but what I don’t understand is why it has to be so silly and slow. It’s like a giant contest. In the debate Dalton McGuinty is brought under the spotlight by opposition leader Tim Hudak who batters him with repeated fire. McGuinty is very poised and well mannered through out the whole experience as is Hudak but I feel like watching paint dry would be far more productive. I think they really need to start banging those drums and get the ball rolling.

Whenever I heard of how long it took to pass a bill or have a simple discussion I was always flabbergasted. I now understand why. The members of the legislature could stand to learn a few things from these guys.

I am not saying this is a good way to resolve problems as if causes more then it solves but if the politicians got out all their frustrated energy and were able to come into the legislature with clear heads I imagine things would go smoother. They also might benefit from stopping their incessant tip toeing and come right out with what they are trying to say. It might not be the most luscious way of saying something but I would sure make a big difference in the speed of the whole process.

Better yet lets just have a supreme court that citizens can go straight to like they do in germany. That would solve the problem too. That way the politicians can take all the time they want and everyone else who wants to have their bill even looked at has a far chance.

by

President and Pope

One of the most controversial subjects, at least in my mind, is that of religion and running a country. Like in this little clip it seems that religion plays a very heavy role in the running of a country. Based mainly on how a president is picked. I do not doubt that religion is important but I my opinion it has no place in the governing of a nation. If a government is to succeed it must be able to understand, incorporate and acknowledge all aspects of the nation. This includes other religious view. This also in no way means that the leader can not be religious but when it comes to making decisions it should be on the basis of facts and evidence proving it is correct and not the sway of a religious view.

While having a catholic or christian leader has for the most part proved very useful with gaining support this age is now being defined by many religions and beliefs and relying on what has, for some time, been a very strong connector may now become a downfall. As touching as it is to see two people of such different and similar spaces of mind come together in harmony it is also troubling. Governments were made with the intention of making religion and state separate and it seems they have managed to collide yet again.

Perhaps this new age of globalization and technology will see that line drawn firmly again or crumble it entirely. Only time will tell.

by

Childish constitutions

A little blurb about constitutions on CBC’s website caught my eye and got me thinking. It was about giving parents a second vote that would be on behalf of their children. Of course this idea was stone wall but thinking on it I believe it may have some merit.

Now I don’t necessarily agree that a parent should have an extra vote for their child as it seem evident that that vote would be used purely by the adult and not serve any purpose to the child. Still it would be interesting if voting ages were dropped dramatically. But then we are faced with the question, At what age is a child old enough to understand politics? I believe that age is far earlier then most seem to think. In grade eight we are placed in a world that does in itself have politics and we do very well in it. Indeed we understand it and have shown great skill in manipulating it. I strongly believe that by letting younger youth join in the decision making process that the amount of understanding and participation politically will rise and perhaps even help to create more independent individuals at a younger age. By involving them we are allowing them to experience the outside world while they are still growing and there for incorporating it into their lives so that when they reach adulthood it will not be a strange unknown that is shoved down their throats.

A vaster knowledge of what awaits is far more productive then a small tray that only delivers samples. A child need not concern themselves with the matters of adults till they have reached the age when adulthood is their next step and a daily dose will help place them on their new adultly path.

should-parents-get-to-vote-more-than-once

by

Political stands over time

For this blog post I’ve been asked to compare my political standing against a parent or someone older then me. I choose my mom to help me with this blog. Most of the time we are very similar in our view but this test may just show if we really are.

Here is my mom’s political standing.

Well just like I thought she is a left wing Libertarian just like me. How ever she is more Libertarian then I am which is odd I thik. This could be due to a misunderstanding of a question or my age and how little I really know about politics. Then again I find that this day and age has a lot more authoritarianism in it then people think. While this may not be entirely true it is my observation that mass media has given authoritarian regimes a chance to have their view known and perhaps because of the age my mother grew up in, when media was significantly less then today, she has be able to solidify her view based on less changing information.

My basic thoughts are that I am still young and have not solidified my view which are continually changing as I decide what I truly stand for. I imagine that when I am in my late twenties my answers will be different then the one I have today.

This sample just proves that the older you are the more authoritarian you are is a false belief.

by

Globalization is sweeping away Nationalism. Or is It?

It seems to me that Globalization on the surface of the issue is taking away Nationalism in that people no longer what to be recognized a a part of the bigger machine. With the rise of globalization and the recognition of distinct cultures with in other cultures more and more peoples are wanting to be recognized as who they are. In this age it seems that our growing ability to be apart of the world over the sea or in our backyard, as it were,  is becoming easier and massively available to everyone. With our advances in internet and new relaying we have sparked the interest of all peoples. In the past people were happy to know what was doing on in their literal backyard but it was just to hard to imagine the rest of the world because we had nothing to connect our selves to in it. Now that is possible. We turn on our television and we are transported to the war in Iraq or to the disaster in Haiti. With media we have been able to connect and our base curiosity has been peaked.

Still I would argue that Nationalism is not being destroyed but rather spread thinner. As Professor Tom Nairn makes note of factions of people are wanting their recognition as a distinct people because that is what they are and they always have been. Now in this technological age they are able to do so and people are finding that others are very supportive, sometimes not, or them.

I my opinion globalization has increased nationalism because the large nations were never the nations that were getting support it was the small factions that were supporting themselves but they had to way of distinguishing themselves and with this ability they have been able to. Nationalism to me is about the land you come from and the people that live there and are just as proud as you for this life and land. I don’t think the spread of globalization will ruin nationalism. It will make it stronger in that if more nations are created they will be so because those people recognize themselves as one people. More nations does not mean the end of nationalism it just means more people finally able to show their true pride. Globalization is just the wave they are riding because it is the most direct route to their final destination.

by

Free Libya soon to be governed by Sharia Law?

Libya and Sharia Law

According to CBC news a new leadership party, in recently freed Libya, is calling for implementation of Sharia Law as the new standard of governance. This news has stirred up much commotion in Canadians that have supported the freeing of Libya. For most the idea of Sharia Law is a definite ‘no’, as aspects of the Islamic religion are often given very negative connotations. People fear that Sharia law will be damaging to the people and will reverse them back into a state similar to the one they have liberated themselves from. Such worries are understandable as aspects of Sharia Law are said to conflict with freedoms and rights of Canadian individuals. There are those that worry that the way women are treated according to the law will violate women’s rights as well.

Ibrahim Jebril a Libyan political activist and fellow Muslim believes that it is the decision of the people of Libya. He might not agree with the final judgement of the people but he believes it is his duty to support his people in what ever decision they make as they have been given the opportunity to chose their government. This is a privilege that should not be taken away.

I happen to agree with Ibrahim Jebril’s in that one governing country can not decide how another is to be governed and should support the people of that country in their decision. It may not match my own set of standards or values, because of the values and standards that I am used to, but it may fit the standards and values of the people in that country. They have been liberated and given the opportunity to chose how they are to be governed and an interference on our part as Canadians would be contradictory to our support. We cannot say then that they have been liberated if we wish to put Western limitations on them.

If they are satisfied them so to am I.