Choosing Leaders

How corrupt and horrible it is when leaders are appointed in our so-called democracy of Canada and not elected. Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell and every other Prime Minister was appointed. In the latter, doubly so. This has occurred, too, at the Provincial level. Gordon Campbell, Ralph Klein and Christy Clark. Christy, like Kim, was doubly appointed. Neither was selected in an election.  I’m not stating they were not elected in their riding to represent their riding.  I’m stating that none of these individuals was elected by the majority in either a Province or the Nation.

The challenges with the current political system is the design and the leadership within it. As mentioned in earlier blogs, we live in an oligarchy, not a democracy. When the rule of the minority outweighs the rule of the majority, an oligarchy reigns. The system itself works for what it was intended – maintain the status quo, keep the people in line and let the minority rule. Democracy? I don’t think so. What is needed is a complete rewrite. In other words, dissolve the constitution and write a new one that is up to date, poignant and able to adapt. If it doesn’t, review it in ten years and write a new one. It is a document, a guideline, not some holy writ. Holy writs should also be examined on a regular basis – why? Because they were written by men and women out of the need for control of the masses.

Choosing federal leaders should be a national act – and mandatory. Choosing a provincial leader should be a provincial act – and mandatory. Both must be a majority vote. If you have no wish to take part in a true democracy, then leave the country or take a financial hit. (See my earlier blogs on Struggle for Democracy)

No leader should be appointed when someone steps down. No leader should be appointed after an election. They should be chosen by the people. In the case of appointments when leaders resign, an immediate election should be called – for the leadership seat. Once again I state that I don’t believe in a party system. It doesn’t work. However, if we must change things in stages, then let us have a leader elected by the people, not a party that I didn’t vote for in the first place.

The largest, most unethical and corrupt act of modern political systems is the appointment of leaders. Don’t believe a thing about democracy. The so-called leaders of nations are appointed. The President of the United States is appointed by an Electoral College, based upon the votes by the people. In Canada, the leader of the majority party is appointed as the Prime Minister. Premiere’s of each province are appointed by same rule – majority party leader becomes the Premiere. In all these cases the leaders (or should we use the word Ruler or Oligarch?) is appointed, not elected. That makes the difference.

Think about it from a mathematical stand-point. In Canada, a member of parliament (federal) is elected to a seat. The same system is applied to members of legislative assemblies in each province. Yet, with a majority party elected – or even a minority party with the most votes, the leader of that party is chosen by the politicians to run the country. This is appointment, not a recognized vote.

For simplicity’s sake, let us say that each riding in Canada has 100,000 citizens. There are 308 Ridings in Canada (therefore 308 Members of Parliament). Let’s say the leading party receives 155 seats, marking them as the majority party. Their leader is appointed as leader of the country, yet he received, perhaps, 30% of the vote of his riding. That means the leader of the country was elected by 33,000 people, in a riding i’ve never heard of or lived in. This, of course, is valid if all 100% of the people of the riding voted. This does not take in to effect the lack of interest in people to actively vote, or the apathy these same people feel that the system doesn’t work. (In the last Federal Election the voter turnout was 61%. Stephen Harper, then was elected by no more than a third of that turn out in his riding – that makes a 3rd of 61,000 people. That equals 20,000 people elected the Prime Minister. By legal definition, that marks the appointment of the Prime Minister an Oligarchic act, not Democratic – and therefore treasonous.

The same is true of provincial politics. Every Prime Minister was appointed, not elected by all the people of the province. What is needed is a vote for leader. If the majority of people do not want to dissolve the party system, then a vote must be made for the leader of the country or province, and this must be a majority vote. Since this is such a critical post, it should be mandatory to vote. By keeping the party system (of which I disagree), then the leaders of all the parties should be held in a second election (once again: mandatory). The majority vote – and only the majority vote – will decide who the leader of the country/province is. At the very least, if the Prime Minister/Premiere chosen is in a separate party to the majority of seats, the politicians will have to begin to work together. Any and all in-fighting and backstabbing should be met with capital punishment to keep the politicians in line.

To sum up, the leaders of Canada and her provinces should and must be elected by the people. Not by an oligarchic rule of appointment masked as a practice of democracy. Do I recognize Steven Harper or Christy Clarke as leaders? Do I view any provincial Premiere as a leader? No, I do not. They were not democratically or ethically chosen by the people. In my opinion, they are guilty of treason against the people and against the true spirit of democracy.

Until next week, remember, these are my opinions and point of view on the subject. That doesn’t make them right for anyone else. It doesn’t make them wrong, either. That stated, if any errors or omissions have occurred, please let me know. I’d be grateful for your point of view.

Warm regards,

Jason Smeraka

Good Reading:

Excellent look at Elections and Riding information in Canada:

Wikipedia’s article on Electoral Districts in Canada:

Voter turnout in last Federal Canadian election:


About jsmeraka

A writer and all-round contrarian, I've worked in and out of government and the private sector, shared radical thoughts on political and global change and aimed to live on the fringe of political and creative thought. That doesn't mean I do. I just hope so.
This entry was posted in Political Change / Discussion, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Choosing Leaders

  1. Allen Gould says:

    Rather than switch to the American style of “let’s elect the local dogcatcher”, I’d rather weaken the party system (preferably by finding some way of reducing the cost of running, and enforcing that low cost). Westminister-style democracies predicate on the MPs being dependent on their local riding’s support. The government then gets it’s mandate from the continued support of those MPs. The Prime Minister and the cabinet were intended to have power only so long as they had the confidence of the house.

    Unfortunately, we adopted enough of the American big-money system that a politician is elected not because of their personal strengths, but because of the banner they’re running under. (See: NDP candidates in Quebec, or pretty much every Conservative that’s ever run in Alberta). Add the fact that you can’t make a credible run without dropping big dough (the spending limit for an Ontario seat was over $130K in the 2011 election), that means that a candidate is far more beholden to the party and/or his campaign contributors than they are to the people who elected them.

    • jsmeraka says:

      Hello again, Allen:
      I’m all for weakening the party system. I’m also for dissolving it altogether. It doesn’t work. In my earlier blogs I state that directly. (at least I hope I wrote it clearly enough!) I wrote this blog for the sole purpose of examining leadership and accountability. You’re correct that the big money system has pervaded Canada from the USA. Harper himself wants to alter the rules even further in favour of this style. I consider it both frighting and a waste of money. What was it my parents used to say? “Throwing good money after bad” is as good a descriptor as anything else.

      Parliamentary Democracies are, indeed,as you say – at least they are supposed to be. Yes, there is the Vote of Non-Confidence that can be conducted, but I’ve never seen a Governor-General, or even HRH The Queen talk down the Prime Minister-incumbant. Only in Australia in 1972 did the Governor-General get tired of the crazy situation and dissolve the house and make voting mandatory. I think we do need to consider mandatory voting here. I did raise the issue in an early blog. I think it as ‘Creation of Democracy Part I’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s