My preference in understanding communication is not shrouded by coercion of the mind or of intention. A form of communication grounded in simple things told by people with simple motivations: Just do good in the world; think before you speak; be respectful. For a long time, I must admit, this combination turned into silence. I am, without a doubt, introverted. I don\u2019t naturally seek out conversation with other people often. I prefer when a conversation arises. Bubbles up like a primordial power. Things that need to be said because you, without a doubt, believe what you are saying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But speech is taught as a performative act. Communication is graded, set up to a standard. The funny thing was I tended to do well when I could speak. I write the script, but also, I tend to do better doing things I want to talk about. Things that turn the script into speech. I need the script; otherwise, I will speak for ages about nonsense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ideas will spin off one another until we lose the plot. It takes a lot of deliberate effort to keep a conversation on track, even with yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think it became abundantly clear that our federal leaders no longer represent the people in these two debates. They represent party ideology. I have no doubt each of those leaders spent their time with their boots on the ground, but when push came to shove, it became about their prepared statements or strategies of attack. In the first debate, the only person who presented a plan towards reconciliation was Elizabeth May.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I voted Green in that election, the first federal election I voted in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this most recent election (I wrote my previous discussion before I voted), I voted NDP. I knew my candidate would lose, and in making that decision, I did not choose the candidate I wanted. I decided on the leader who I saw as the \u201clesser of all the evils.\u201d That is not to say I think any of the leaders are inherently evil (although I do believe Maxime Bernier is a reactionary conservative who should be more equitable to more extreme right movements). Still, I do not see how any of those leaders could work together with Indigenous peoples because they already showed they could not work amongst themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I boiled it down to from these two \u201cdebates:\u201d Until our leaders can say nice things about each other, reconciliation will remain a dream.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Why? Well, because reconciliation requires people to put aside their differences and come together to form a new <\/em>relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our current government system does not facilitate that. I saw it first in a Beaverton article. Still, it was reported on the news a new (actually old) discussion: Electoral Reform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our current electoral system is built off a concept of representative government. There are too many people, so we collectivize our political presence through a representative elected. That representative is responsible for representing the interests of their constituents (the people in the riding where they were elected, this does not mean the people who elected\/voted for them). Alas, as the text in paratheses suggests, this does not mean that they are intended to represent those who voted them in. They are supposed to represent everyone from said community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Canada, we have a 99.7% party loyalty for members of parliament following their party in votes in the House of Commons. What does that mean? That means whoever is elected from your riding will invariably turn into votes in the House of Commons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus the current calculus of the Canadian Political System boils down to a vote for a candidate is only going to do anything if your candidate wins. It\u2019s the \u201cWasted Vote\u201d mindset that your vote doesn\u2019t matter. It technically translates into dollars, as the Canadian government gives party money based on the number of votes they receive for campaigning purposes. When I first heard of that, it worked out to something like a dollar per vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, we have a problem that has worked into the representative system: Party Loyalty. This isn\u2019t official, this isn\u2019t a requirement of how political parties are supposed to operate, but this is how they do. Now the trouble is, though, Party Loyalty is not <\/em>representative of people<\/strong>. I am curious about Jody Wilson-Raybould\u2019s opportunity to be an independent Member of Parliament after being ejected from the party. I have to move her books up my reading list, as she seems to be an ideal opportunity to see the trouble with our system. Indigenous representation is locked behind Party Loyalty, in which party platforms dictate what should be human interpretation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We see that in the federal leaders, none of them had a genuine opinion on anything. They had a party platform and a prepared strategy based on this calculus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Elizabeth May suggested we need a new system: An intergovernmental house of representatives in which Indigenous nations are represented as equal partners on this land<\/strong>. Recognition of Indigenous land rights and a government of reconciliation and relationship building should be the goal we are pursuing. However, electoral reforms gets laughed out of the house. Federal voter turnout still hovers around 50-70% with declining numbers as you get more local.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our country has a democracy problem. Through negligence and apathy, we\u2019ve allowed our country\u2019s democracy to turn into a caricature of equity and equality where our systems have the guise of democracy but translate into apathy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lost somewhere in the push for Canadian-ness, one that reflects an ideology that I somewhere down the line ascribe to: \u201cWe are all Canadians.\u201d We all bring our individual pieces to a great project, that national project. Yet, it is the top-down model in which causes conflict. Federal, provincial, and even municipal governments orient themselves to serve the interests of those who put them into power. That is the fundamental problem with democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In theory,<\/strong> representative democracy allows for the representation of diverse communities in a political system. What they don\u2019t tell you is the long history of democracy. Winston Churchill said it best: \u201cdemocracy is the worst form of government \u2013 except for all the others that have been tried.\u201d Westminster democracy has been imposed upon the world for centuries as the ideal form of government after it prevailed over Fascism, Nazism, and Communism through the 20th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But representative democracy, as it stands today, is oriented towards those who put them in power. Liberals in Canada are oriented towards Liberal voters, Conservatives for Conservative voters, and vice versa. Political conflict is the conflict between party ideology in representative democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I wrote this elsewhere, but I want to share it here first: Politics is not about what is important to the country; It\u2019s about what is important to you.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Our society is ill-equipped to engage with politics, and that\u2019s perfectly fine by those in power. Just like housing and labour markets rely upon a certain amount of constant demand to drive up prices, Politicians traditionally don\u2019t mind if their electorate is disengaged with the discussion. So long as enough of them vote to get them into power. When you start getting down to municipal (and school board) elections, it becomes very<\/strong> easy to win elections with what amounts to a handful of votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All this boils down to the disempowerment of the community. Our society is structured to dismember communities and pit them against each other while acknowledging the inherent political power of the individual. That acknowledgment is satisfaction enough for most liberal democratic citizens, those who believe that the right to vote is enough of an acknowledgment of a human\u2019s inherent rights. That right to vote that enfranchisement and citizenship assumes that you are an acknowledged member of the Canadian Community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n