Dream of Democracy 6: the war of the words

Time for a recap. The governmental system that currently asserts sovereignty over the portion of the North America land mass commonly known as ‘Canada’ (via the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982) does so in several ways that are morally and ethically indefensibly. Specifically, 'Canada', as currently constituted, exists 

• without any constitutional obligations regarding the sustainability of the ecological environment of which it is a part (and which it is steadily degrading) 
• without any fundamental obligation toward the safety and welfare of the people who inhabit the land (many do not enjoy the basic human requirements of food and safe shelter)
• without obligation to the rest of the planet’s population (‘Canada’ regularly engages in exploitative commercial exchanges and diplomatic relationships with companies and nations that violate their employees’/citizens' basic human rights)

Consequently, ‘Canada’, as currently constituted, is a nation lacking in fundamental legitimacy according to any and all accepted standards of human dignity and environmental justice. As such, it is up for replacement by a new and better version of 'Canada'.

How to do this?

Constitutional amendment is a torturously slow and politically-thwarted process. As beneficiaries of the current system, all current power elites in the 'Canadian' political sphere have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to varying extents and are thus unqualified to speak to the idea of comprehensive, systemic reform. Similarly, those outside of the power elites who seek to bring their country toward a more just future find themselves like fleas attacking an elephant. To the extent that they 'play ball' and work within the system, they tend to become co-opted by 'Canada'; to the extent that they keep themselves and their ideals pure, they are condemned to marginalization and frustration (Leonard Cohen's proverbial--and very Canadian--sentence of "twenty years of boredom/for trying to change the system from within").

Therefore, change must come in the form of a new constitution—one that fully enshrines human rights and protects the environment. This new constitution must then replace the old one.

Let's give this new 'Canada' a name: Canada B. Canada B must eventually replace ‘Canada’ as a part of peaceful human cultural evolution.

Why 'must'? In a rapidly-shrinking world, there is an urgent need to expand justice’s and humanity’s scope. Our current system has brought us to the brink of environmental and economic disaster. Poverty is rampant all around the world. Nothing we have now is even remotely secure.

It's worth noting that, while outdated and limited, our current ‘Canada’ has served many well and represents an important, though not final, step in the development of human governance. The achievement of the limited form of democracy represented by 'Canada' is no small thing. We need only look around the world to see other models that are much worse. As we evolve past 'Canada' we should be careful to respect its very real achievements.

However, it is now time to move on. 

Though currently hypothetical, Canada B already exists in the hearts of millions of 'Canadians' as an ideal. Who believes in food and shelter for all? All decent people. Who believes that our environment must be protected for future generations? All decent people. These beliefs are core to all the great religions and social movements: they are key aspects of our First Nations people's heritage. There is nothing new or 'radical' about them. They are as ordinary and as Canadian as hockey or a Nanaimo bar.

The problem isn't to decide what needs to be done to ensure a livable future for our children: the problem is how to create a system of government that properly reflects the average person's values. Our system of political parties, while it has advantages, tends to keep people polarized and fixated on problems as framed within the current system. Consequently, a kind of disconnect occurs. A highly principled and compassionate person finds themselves 'conservative' and therefore 'anti-welfare' even though their own values would not allow them to watch a neighbour's child go hungry. Similarly, another person, a 'liberal' finds themselves against all forms of logging even though they wouldn't want to see their neighbour lose their job or the economy collapse. In such a polarizied system, it's difficult to identify and implement real—and really common—values.

People understand this--and so they tune out of politics even as the need for good governance becomes greater than ever before.

In practical terms, Canada B is as real as we choose to make it. If Canada B can have twenty citizens it can have twenty million and become a reality. In an important way—and nebulous as it is right now--Canada B is already more real than ‘Canada’ as it conforms more closely to the call of the human heart and spirit.

Next time we'll assume the hard work of drafting this new constitution has been accomplished and that it's now time to implement it. Why skip this important step? Several reasons. First, drafting this document will take a lot of time and effort. Second, because no one will want to work on a utopian scheme if they have no reason to believe is implementable. The replacement of 'Canada' by Canada B will be achieved peacefully, through two processes that I call 'layering' and 'permeation'.