Tyranny of the Majority

Canada’s parliamentary system of democracy is failing and may slip faster and more dangerously toward dictatorship in the future. The reason for this is democracy itself. There are two kinds of democracy; Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy. The latter is the type we find in the British Parliamentary System, which Canada adopted when it became a nation in 1867.

---

Representatives of the people, elected from various districts, vote on national issues in the House of Commons with the majority of 50% +1 ruling the day. Direct Democracy is similar to a town hall meeting where you represent your own interests and the majority rules with a 50% +1 vote. I was taught in school that, even with its many flaws, Canada’s Parliamentary system, which has been patterned after Britain’s, was the best system of government in the world. The British did a remarkable job with the Magna Carta in 1215, and brought Representative Democracy to many parts of the world during their period of Imperialistic expansion. But, those days are gone forever. Britain has relinquished ties to its many former colonies. Many of these colonies that were introduced to British Representative Democracy, such as Southern Rhodesia, Sudan, Kenya, Sierra Leone, have become despotic failed states, while others, like Canada, Australia, and India, have flourished. It’s apparent that British Representative Democracy through malevolent manipulation allowed some former free colonies to slide into despotism. Consequently, it’s very clear that Representative Democracy doesn’t guarantee freedom from fascism or any other form of tyranny. In time, such a scenario could occur in Britain, France, and the Netherlands or in any other place where Representative Democracy is the form of government – and, yes, even in Canada. For example, suppose a dominating religious group were elected and had enough members to form a majority government. What if their platform had included a plan to replace our secular system of Canadian Common Law for a type of New Religious Law that went far and away from the former system and, in the view of many Canadians, appeared barbaric and regressive? And suppose that the New Religious Law became the law of the land by a vote of 50% +1. What power would the citizenry have to renounce that law? Oh, just one more thing. There is no freedom of speech, assembly, or press under the New Religious Law. What now? Countries, such as Canada have created “Bills of Rights” which are meant to cover this kind of tyranny, but a majority of 50% +1 in a Parliamentary vote could rescind or circumvent those pesky items, again through manipulation. Canada’s disgraceful Human Rights Commissions are a perfect example of government circuitously evading traditional courts in favour of activist star chambers in order to “regulate”, no let’s say “manipulate”, the content of published material by means of a chilling effect on the press. These draconian laws are lethal flies in our political ointment which could be overcome by re-inventing Canada, while there is time, in order to protect, not just the majority, but the individual rights of each and every citizen. When individual right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are safeguarded then the majority and the minority are protected. Not surprisingly, these ideals sound much like the constitutional structure of the United States. One could say that if tyranny could be accomplished in Canada, it could be attained in the U.S. as well, but there are two distinct differences between the U.S. and Canada which makes brutal tyranny much more difficult in the U.S. That difference was granted wisely by the founding fathers of the U.S. constitution in the right to bear arms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In every case of despotic takeover, control of the citizenry is paramount. Canadians are already “under control”, while Americans at the start of the Obama presidency still have the ability to defend their own country against a hostile, yet democratically elected domestic government. Also, Americans have the means to protect themselves from outside aggressors, while Canadians must rely on an ineffective military. Change could take place in Canada by creation of a Republic style of government whereby the citizens grant to their government certain limited powers under a constitution that involves a host of checks and balances that further protect them from tyranny. The Constitution cannot be a “living” or “evolving” constitution. This term has been coined by activist judges to enable them to make changes to a constitution without citizen representation, already a fact in Canada and the U.S. The Constitution must be a permanent document; clear, concise, without ambiguity. Otherwise Canada will slide into the despair of European Socialism and who knows where that’s going? There is no time like the present to open discussions on the formulation of New Deal for Canada; one that will protect each and every individual from “Tyranny of the Majority”. The place to start is with the American Constitution. Are Canadians up to it? Barry Blick is a political junkie who believes the road to European socialism could eventually be a disaster for Canada. After an extensive career in the airline industry, he now provides marketing solutions for real estate through his own Calgary based company. Barry can be reached at: barry.blick@pacificwest.com

---