Re: Canada's Next Great Prime Minister Entry - Alika Lafontaine

[Sambucacat]

tax free pho for all!

[Saskdoc]

If I understand correctly, doesn't the electorate lay out priorities for its government than hold the same accountable for finding solutions to those priorities? One of many problems with our current system is the lack of accountability.  With a true, coherent, nationally elected legislative body we could have that.

[melodiousfish]

A huge ritual edifice separates the Canadian electorate from the sort of direct government you speak of. And good thing. The structure of our society precludes the sort of 'professional citizenship' that a more accountable form of government would require.

[melodiousfish]

With neither the knowledge base to gauge the success or failure of state initiatives or the disposition to agonize over often very academic matters, our public is for the most part all too happy to give up some of its negotiation power in return for peace of mind. This is a far from foolproof arrangement, and yes, improvements can be made. It's just that there's no reason to suppose that your Aboriginal House would behave differently from every other bureaucracy in this country

[melodiousfish]

. And, given their long history of disincentives, there is no reason to expect more participation on the part of native people than the rest of Canada. Not trusting the current system is one thing. Creating another layer of jurisdictional confusion and hoping for the best is another story entirely.

[melodiousfish]

Now is high time to actually discuss the questions posed in my video, I think

[Saskdoc]

So you're saying we shouldn't try for consensus because everyone has a different opinion and we're all used to the status quo? A simple yes or no would probably be a bit more clear.

[melodiousfish]

no. i think i've illustrated quite clearly that the issue is not an inability to reach a consensus, but a very real division in priorities and emphasis among natives of all walks of life across canada. the simple act of additional bureaucracy may certainly not be enough to reconcile the differences

[Saskdoc]

Call me idealistic, but I don't think Aboriginal peoples are going to be divided in whether dealing with crime, education and economic development are priorities.

[melodiousfish]

Not even the most politically maladapted person would oppose dealing with crime, education and economic development. It's just that those soundbytes and the actual policymaking required to make them more than words are miles apart. Experts cannot agree on the appropriate course of action, nevermind mass opinion.

[Saskdoc]

So what your saying is because it will be more difficult to come to a consensus we shouldn't even try? The fact that something is complex doesn't exclude it from group consensus.

To be honest, Aboriginal people haven't been given a choice of whether or not to be involved so how do we really know what we would do as a people?

[melodiousfish]

The idea of primitive democracy, with group consensus as a cornerstone, is a confusion of metaphor and reality. Democracy, and democratic processes like enfranchising native peoples, is/are predicated on a symbolic union of a 'common will' and professional opinion. Native affairs are not so exceptional that the basic principles of western governance need be suspended. After all, the past 300 years have rendered native people western in nearly every respect

[melodiousfish]

As for not knowing what we'd do as a nation, native people have been consulted to death by every pertinent agency, think tank and committee. The lines of contention can be traced with some sureness, and any informed appraisal would concede the unlikelihood of consensus in the near future. Natives (at least on reserve) tend to be suspicious of bureaucracy, but quick to accept dysfunctional realities.

[melodiousfish]

. If it weren't this particular asshole robbing us blind, surely someone else would. Attempts to create a consensus and work from there would be greeted with skepticism, to say the least. Then there is the ideological road map of native Canada: it runs from the volkisch hysterics of the warrior societies to mainstream democratic liberalism to Marxist and postmodern forms of pan-indianism

[melodiousfish]

In all democracies, minorities of confirmed fanatics compete for the passive allegiances of the uncommitted majority. This would be no different among natives. It's just that the fanatics who command the most respect are the ones least likely to put forth a productive platform. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the questions in my video

[Saskdoc]

You bring up some previously noted concerns. Shouldn't we ask Aboriginal peoples how they'd like this to work instead of imposing a system on them? These are just ideas after all.

[melodiousfish]

Yes, I brought up a few of these points some time ago, but you did not feel at liberty to address them. As for a form of elective reform...finding a consensus on any issue would be unlikely. Democracy is a framework of symbolic consent. It has professional organs of assessment and prescription, and doesn't depend on a showing of hands with complex issues.