In the peace vs. justice debate there are essentially two camps. One argues that justice can and should never be sacrificed in the name of peace. The other camp maintains that there will be occasions where establishing a durable peace in fact requires foregoing the relentless pursuit of justice. I believe that those who argue that justice can never be sacrificed in the name of peace are simply being unrealistic. However, I also disagree with those who have called for an immediate suspension of the warrant against President al-Bashir. The time may come when such a suspension could advance the peace process, but at this point it would not serve the interests of peace or justice.

Under the UN system, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 16 of the Rome Statute recognizes that the Security Council’s mandate to maintain peace and security will, if necessary, take precedence over the ICC’s mandate to prosecute war criminals. The priority of peace over justice is not absolute. The Security Council cannot simply vacate warrants, and suspension requires a resolution under Chapter VII, meaning that the Permanent 5 must be in agreement on the matter. However, the Security Council can suspend warrants every year indefinitely. The Rome Statute itself thus recognizes that there will be occasions where the maintenance of peace and security demands that justice be (at the very least) delayed. This is so even when the crimes are as horrendous as those under the jurisdiction of the Court — war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and (the yet to be defined) aggression.

This stands to reason. Even in stable countries with functioning justice systems, compromise is necessary. Criminals are given lighter or no sentences in exchange for pleading guilty or testifying against other criminals. In such exchanges “justice” is not served in the sense that society has defined an appropriate punishment for a crime, yet a person committing that crime escapes the punishment. Some will even escape the public denunciation of a conviction. Yet practical necessity requires that we compromise this ideal of justice in order to have a functioning system. Article 16 recognizes that just as practical considerations make compromise necessary in domestic systems, they may also do so in the international context. The question is not whether we sacrifice justice for peace. Rather, the question is how much justice should be sacrificed and how much peace must be gained in exchange?

This brings us to the case of Omar al-Bashir. Many have called for the warrant to be suspended because of possible disruptions not only to the peace process in Darfur, but to a shaky peace between Khartoum and rebels in the South of Sudan. Under the latter agreement, referenda on some form of internal autonomy are scheduled for 2011. Bashir was instrumental to bringing about that agreement, and is seen as crucial to its continued viability. Others point out that since the warrant was issued, Bashir has expelled several aid organizations that were providing badly needed food and medical care in Darfuri refugee camps.

In this context, the arrest warrants can function as a bargaining chip in continued negotiations with Khartoum. Because of the warrant against him, Bashir cannot travel abroad without risking being arrested and extradited to the Hague. This is part of a broader range of travel and trade restrictions that have been imposed on Sudan. They can therefore be part of negotiations aimed at bringing about a peace agreement in Darfur, allowing access to the area by NGOs and aid organizations, and continuing progress on the peace process in the South. An interesting side effect of such an approach is that it would require the active engagement of the UN Security Council, particularly the P5.

Suspending the warrants now would just sacrifice a valuable bargaining chip while getting nothing in return. However, if Bashir were willing to comply with certain agreed conditions, the justice could be delayed, perhaps indefinitely. It is fair to point out the injustice in letting authors of genocide escape prosecution. However, it seems to me that far greater injustices are inevitable if the international community does not use every means at its disposal to bring peace to Sundan.

In a sense, the contest between the Whigs and the Tories was merely an extension of the centuries-old power struggle between monarchs and the aristocracy for control of the state which had characterized European politics since Charlemagne. This struggle resulted in a different equilibrium in different places. In England, the Magna Carta ensured a strong aristocracy and a (relatively) weak monarch. In Germany, the Holy Roman Emperor was primarily a figurehead with little real power beyond what the German princes were willing to give him. In France, the aristocracy was once so strong that the “King of the Franks” was weaker than many of his barons and could not control his own domains in Île-de-France. However, beginning with Louis IX a process of consolidation began, accelerating under Richelieu and Louis XIV (the Sun King) and leading France to become the paradigmatic example of absolute monarchy and centralisation. Plus ça change…

Politics functioned differently in a time where movement from one place to another was slow and difficult, if it was not legally prohibited (e.g. serfdom). There was no sense of Country X as a unified society pursuing common ideals of justice and prosperity. Identities were local and class-based. Politics was a naked power struggle between localities and interest groups. One feudal domain would often go to war against another, even though both were nominally subject to the same king. Eventually palace intrigue supplanted open violence, giving rise to the adage that politics is war conducted by other means…

The English Westminster system still retains many of the features impressed upon it by these realities. The propertied commoners elected representatives on a local basis to defend their interests in London (the House of Commons). The aristocracy had a chamber of its own in which seats were held on a hereditary basis (the House of Lords). And the King sat in Parliament, whose acts had no force without his royal assent. The lower classes, of course, had no direct representation…

The first political parties to emerge in the elected assemblies that slowly appeared all over Europe during the late Middle-Ages were not ideological entities. They were combinations of local and sectional interests who cooperated to bring about mutually desirable outcomes. These goals were not pursued on the basis of political “values” in the modern sense, but out of naked self-interest or religious conviction. In this climate, “partisanship” meant a kind of tribalism; this is why George Washington decried it in his last address to the nation before leaving office.

In some ways, this dynamic is still present in modern U.S. politics. People often speak of the two main parties as “coalitions” of various interest groups cooperating to achieve political power. The Democratic Party is comprised of African-Americans, low-income whites and latinos, and the educated elite of various large cities. The GOP is made up of evangelicals and other groups of the highly religious, small business-owners, the upper middle-class and small-government types. Layered on top of these smaller divisions is the classic (if slowly fading) North-South dynamic left over from the 19th Century struggles over slavery.

Both parties have historically tended to be quite heterogeneous in ideological terms, especially when compared to European parties. This has to do with the sheer size of the U.S. when compared to most European states. With the advent of modern transportation and mass-media, countries like France and Germany were quickly collapsed into relatively small cultural and geographic spaces. Local and regional identities faded, and politics became a debate over the proper use of political power in relation to common ideals, rather than a naked power struggle. In the U.S., even with technological advancements, the sheer size and cultural diversity of the country prevented the kind of homogenisation that occurred in European states. While we often speak of an American “melting-pot”, and while it’s true that most Americans share the same (very abstract) identity, local and class identities remain very strong (witness Sarah Palin’s references to “real Americans”). Only now, after decades of mass culture and a mobile population, are we beginning to see the two-party system fall into some kind of ideological alignment. And even then, regional disparities between the Old South and the rest of the country remain very strong.

Politics in a unified and relatively homogenous state functions somewhat differently. Although European elected assemblies began their lives as fora for local and sectional disputes over the direction of national policy, centuries of shared political consciousness and administrative centralization have watered down that dynamic. Political debates since the late 19th Century have revolved around competing political ideologies, and this has had a profound impact on the way politics is conducted. While some of these ideologies were obviously intended to benefit one class over others (e.g. Marxism), the very concept of an ideology changes the nature of the contest. No longer is it a power struggle to obtain benefits for one’s “tribe”; it becomes a debate over the principles that should guide state action, a debate over the very purpose of the state itself. In a power struggle, one attempts to build alliances by exchanging quid pro quos. In a debate, one attempts to persuade based on commonly held values and principles of reason.

This brings me, finally, to the nature of “partisanship”. Partisanship in a power struggle is merely a form of tribalism. Partisan action in such a contest is unmoored from any kind of principle or ethical framework. The issue is not how the state is governed but rather who is governing it. However, partisanship in a debate-framework functions differently. One joins a party because its social vision appeals to one’s own values and sense of how the state should be governed. “Partisanship” in that context is merely a principled defence of ideals and empirical beliefs against a competing vision.

In his post, Brendan is more or less restating Mill’s argument in favour of free speech in On Liberty. Free debate and discussion creates an environment in which selective pressures operate to weed out bad ideas and promote good ones. I certainly agree with that. But his endorsement of “partisanship” assumes the existence of a certain type of political dynamic. Modern politics is a mixture of power struggle and debate, to varying degrees. When the prevailing dynamic is the power struggle, partisanship can be extremely pernicious. It works to break down the common bonds that unite all members of the polity and emphasise narrower interests. The old aristocracies don’t exist anymore, but think of “identity politics” and you’ll see what I mean. In the Canadian context, the Bloc Québécois represents the most pernicious type of partisanship. It is naked tribalism: the founding premise of the party is to deny that francophone Quebeckers share a common public sphere with other Canadians, and that only ad hoc cooperation based on quid pro quo is possible.

I certainly agree that vigorous debate over the merits of policy is a good thing. But I also think that people instinctively feel the dangers lurking behind this kind of principled partisanship. One reason why Obama’s message of “post-partisanship” is so appealing to Americans is that they realise that the GOP/Karl Rove-brand of partisanship, with its wedge issues and identity politics, simply amplifies divisions rather than attempting to find common ground on which to develop solutions. This is a destructive dynamic that impedes, rather than aids, the creation of good policy, and should be discouraged.

In the U.S., President Obama has been trying to pursue a promise of putting an end to partisan bickering so that everyone can move forward together. In Canada, after December’s coalition talk Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has been laying down his conditions for bipartisan cooperation (having abandoned previous plans for tripartisan cooperation). Bipartisanship, non-partisanship, cooperation, collaboration — all lofty goals that paint a picture of cooperative government that’s really able to “get things done.” 

Unfortunately, a blind embrace of the “bipartisan spirit” or “setting aside our differences” and “working together” is not always healthy in a democracy and often results in poor policy choices and implementation. Extreme partisanship can be counterproductive. Good policies are too frequently opposed simply because they come from a different party. But partisanship can also be necessary and productive. Just as good policies can be undermined by excessive partisanship, bad policies can often result from excessive bipartisanship. 

Without opposition, a policy can often be implemented without sufficient scrutiny and reflection. South of the border, the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq both passed with enthusiastic bipartisan support. Neither was subject to the serious scrutiny that they merited because neither received any significant opposition. In the wake of Canada’s sponsorship scandal, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-11. As originally drafted, the bill was weak and ineffective. After weeks of partisan talking, bickering, compromise, and yes cooperation, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act emerged as a stronger law with legitimate protections for government whistle blowers.

What every democracy needs is principled partisanship. Political parties should not take shame in or be criticized for standing up for their principles. In Canada, the opposition parties were right to unite against the government in order to press for a stimulus package (even if the actual impetus for the alliance had more to do with preserving funding for opposition parties). Their opposition reflected the values of each party and those of the voters who elected them. In this context it would have been undemocratic for the opposition to support the budget in the name of bipartisan cooperation. Partisanship was necessary and beneficial.

Similarly, although I support economic stimulus in this climate, I don’t believe it is fair to accuse U.S. Republicans of “partisanship” for opposing the plan. Republicans believe that the stimulus will not work, that the key to a healthy economy is small government and low taxes. The Republicans in Congress ran on these ideas and were elected to pursue them. I happen to think that their opposition to the stimulus package is misguided, but it is not unprincipled or crass political manoeuvring. Just as it would have been undemocratic for the Liberals in Canada to support a budget without stimulus, it would be undemocratic for small-government Republicans to support massive spending.

The gravity of the current economic crisis is not a reason to set aside partisanship. When massive amounts of money are being spent and governments are involving themselves so profoundly in their economies, it is vital that shape, scope, and scale of government policies be carefully considered. In democracies this means debate and debate means partisanship. It’s time to take back the p-word.

Without giving too much away, the movie is on the surface a tale about a child who grew up in the slums of Mumbai.Throughout his journey he faces persecution from police, organized crime, and violent religious factions. He lives hand-to-mouth whatever his surroundings — slums, garbage dumps, or call centres — but through a series of events finds himself as a contestant on an Indian version of ‘Who Wants To Be a Millionaire’.  

Within George’s article he provocatively questions whether by highlighting the bad side of a developing India the movie might be an attempt by the Western world put down a great civilization that is rebounding to its glory of yore. This question made me rethink what the movie might represent to people living within and outside of India, and changed my perception of the movie from simply being a rags-to-riches Hollywood fairytale. It highlighted to me that the film was more than simply a good story; that there was inherent reality within the story too.

Game show aspects aside, the India portrayed in the film was, in part, the India I saw when I was there — an India that was in the same breath amazing, stunning, creative, but also being held back by organized crime, poverty, corruption, and bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy (e.g. for fun try purchasing a train ticket through the lengthy hand written form).  

The slums I saw while traveling were shocking not only due to their frequency, but also because of their approximation and contrast with their surroundings; a slum could be located adjacent to an opera house, shopping mall, or modern downtown apartment complex. To put it into perspective, imagine a permanent acre-wide slum backing onto the Eaton’s Centre in downtown Toronto.

The contrast between rich and poor was equally stunning. Poverty in some cases was so extreme that mothers were literally sleeping on the dirty sidewalks with their babies, and Oliver-Twist style beggars who’d lost limbs through accidents, or ‘purposeful’ actions scrambled for spare change.  

Beyond all this though, what I saw when I was there was a society in transition despite having the odds stacked against it. What I also saw was an India that was developing and transforming rapidly. Examples of this rapid development include: Delhi legislating the use of green fuelfor Taxis and Tuk-Tuks to reduce smog and carbon emissions in one of the most heavily polluted cities in the world; massive IT centres like those within Hyderabad; and pilot projects to tax reform which will provide stable funding for much needed infrastructure projects.

After reading George’s article, and reflecting on the movie again, I realized that Slumdog represents a refreshing look at India. It portrays the India bubbling just below the surface — the India that will hopefully help the rest of the world better understand the contemporary reality of this complex country. India is more than a tourist brochure for a new age spiritual movement or backdrop for an Indiana Jones movie. Slumdog Millionaire demontrates, albeit with some embellishment, that India is an actual place with real people facing universally experienced problems — poverty, adversity, lost love, and crime.  

A movie is simply art and so it is by and large ‘in the eye of the beholder’, but hopefully by providing a refreshing take on India, and by highlighting its problems – poverty, crime, corruption, etc. – in a movie of mass appeal, India, as well as the western world, can start working toward solutions. Oliver Twist helped highlight issues inherent in a rapidly industrializing London, and hopefully Slumdog Millionaire can do the same for a rapidly developing Mumbai.   

I enjoyed traveling within India, and enjoyed this film too. Far from being a put down of India I think the movie highlights a problem in search of a solution which can, hopefully, only make a good thing better.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but history will not judge George W. Bush kindly. I don’t just say this as a progressive blogger who takes pleasure in Bush-bashing. No, first and foremost I write as a history major who is rather insulted by the idea that my successors will be so misguided as to vindicate this administration. The list of disasters, failures, and crimes is too long to rehash in the course of one blog entry. Luckily, the list of arguments in favour of Bush is much shorter and more easily refuted.  

It seems the ultimate coup de grace for right wing pundits is the mantra, “Say what you will, but George W. Bush has kept this nation safe.” I love the Simpsons. The show has a way of demonstrating the obvious. In one episode, a bear wanders into Springfield. In response, the town initiates an expensive, militaristic Bear Patrol to protect Springfield from future attacks. Arguing the merits of the program, Homer tells Lisa that if nothing else, the Bear Patrol has prevented anymore bear attacks. Lisa responds by offering to sell Homer a rock that keeps tigers away. “You don’t see any tigers around do you?” Homer buys the rock. 

Yes, Bush initiated a massive, expensive series of military actions that have cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. No, there have not been any terrorist attacks in the U.S. since September 11. But that does not make Bush right. The Bear Patrol analogy illustrates a simple point — correlation does not imply causation. A bear entering Springfield was an unusual event unlikely to recur. The fact that there have been no other terrorist attacks during the Bush Presidency does not mean that the Bush Presidency prevented terrorist attacks.  

Second on the list, Iraq. If Iraq becomes a stable democracy, Bush’s suuporters say, his decision to invade will be vindicated. First, Iraq likely won’t become a democracy. At best, what we can hope for in Iraq is a soft dictatorship ruling a loose federation of Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. Even if Iraq were to become a democracy, history would not change the current condemnation of the war. History will not forget that the war was started not in the name of democracy but on the pretext of non-existent WMD. History will not forget the disastrous de-Baathification strategy. History will not forget Abu Ghraib. If Iraq becomes a stable, peaceful, democratic country, history will record that it was despite George W. Bush, not because of him.

Third, Harry Truman. Poor Harry Truman. In life, he had to constantly battle a Republican Congress and in the past year he has been invoked by Republicans seeking to justify not only Bush but Sarah Palin. In arguing in favour of Palin, despite her thin resume, Republicans noted that Truman was elected to office with nothing on his resume but running a failed haberdashery (I know, I thought it was a made up word too). Of course, the fact that Truman served as a US Senator and played an integral role in overseeing expenditures during World War II to ensure the government was not wasting money on pork barrel projects as had happened during the First World War is often overlooked. Most fatal to the Palin analogy is that Truman was an avid reader who could recount from memory the biographies of Roman Caesars and once recited 1,000 years of Korean history to General McArthur and the Joint Chiefs during the Korean War, whereas when asked to name a newspaper she read on a regular basis Palin’s only response was “all of em.” And yes, Truman’s approval ratings were low when he left office, but then he left after more than two decades of Democrats in the White House. Most importantly, Truman was President through two victorious wars that were both responses to aggression.    

The greatest failing of the argument that history will judge President Bush more kindly is that it ignores an adage of the field — newspapers are history’s first draft. Doubtless, the draft will be adapted and additions made as archival documents are released and new insider accounts come to light. But the basic narrative is set, the Bush Presidency is at the very least the most disastrous since Vietnam. Arguments to the contrary will not be the result of hindsight, one of history’s great tools. They will be the result of one of history’s great weaknesses — revisionism.

Members of the Cabinet and the IDF have used the phrase “all out war with Hamas” on several occasions.  Yet, they have also said that the strikes have the “limited” goal of eliminating Hamas’ ability to launch rockets at Gaza. In either case, I find it difficult to imagine the Israelis succeeding. If this is framed as an all out war with Hamas, then Israel has already stacked the deck against itself. In order to declare victory in such a war, all that Hamas has to do is survive. Given Hamas’ sheer numbers (estimated at about 20,000 men at arms), and their close connection to the local population, it is inevitable that much of Hamas’ command structure and even weapons will survive these operations. When they do, and Israel leaves, Hamas will declare that it has scored a major victory against Israeli aggression. 

The more “limited” goal of eliminating Hamas’ ability to launch rockets seems equally unrealistic. The majority of Hamas rockets are cheap and home made, the materials used to make them are easy to smuggle into Gaza, and they can be fired from just about anywhere. It seems unlikely that any amount of Israeli bombardment will eliminate Hamas’ ability to launch them. Once again, if Israel frames its offensive in this way, all that Hamas has to do to declare victory is survive, preserve half a dozen rockets, and begin rearming. 

Another rationale put forward by observers is that, after the failure of their July 2006 incursion against Hezbollah, Israel needs a tactical win against Hamas to re-establish the credibility of its deterrence. To the extent that the deterrence is directed against neighbouring states, this is unnecessary. Israel has a massive military advantage against all of its neighbours and they are all quite aware of that fact. To the extent that the deterrence is directed against Hamas, the action taken will be ineffective. The simple reason is that Hamas does not fear Israeli strikes against Gaza, it welcomes them. These strikes and the civilian casualties they cause simply galvanize Hamas’ base of support. Hamas can now paint itself as the only group that is able and willing to oppose Israel and fight for Palestinians. Inversely, by sitting on the sidelines, the PLO become discredited and appear weak and unprincipled for their refusal and inability to mount an armed resistance. Neighbouring governments, already struggling for credibility, are painted with the same brush. The logic of violence strengthens radicals willing to use violence and discredits moderates who are not. Hamas knows this and so is not deterred by the prospect of violence. 

My own opinion is that the Israeli offensive has much more to do with events in Washington than Gaza. The Bush Administration has been very sympathetic to Israeli military actions. Given the current transitional phase in Washington, it is less likely than ever to mount any real pressure on Israel to commit to a cease-fire. The Obama Administration is unlikely to endorse such policies in the way that Bush has. This means that if Israel hopes to exercise the military option against Hamas, now is the time that it will have the most room to manoeuvre. It seems to me that Israel is taking this opportunity in order to weaken Hamas as much as possible and present the Obama Administration with a very different status quo than existed two weeks ago.   

Such a decision has some merit as a tactic, but in the long term it is an unwise strategy for the same reason that attempts at deterrence are unwise. Although Israeli strikes may weaken Hamas’ ability to launch rockets in the short term, they strengthen Hamas’ legitimacy among and its connection to the Palestinians of Gaza.  Tunnels can be rebuilt and more arms smuggled in. When they are, Hamas will be stronger than ever.

Canadian voting patterns, however, indicate something quite different. Election after election, Canadians tend to place the environment quite low on the list of election issues upon which they cast their vote. The economy has historically been among the top issues on the minds of voters, so let’s take a look at the environment through an economic lens.

Energy drives everything on our planet. We need energy to produce stuff and to consume stuff. In North America, we rely almost exclusively on non-renewable sources of energy. It’s no secret that these sources, including oil and coal, are the major contributors to pollution, global warming, and the general disarray of our environment.

The problem, in economic terms, is that these sources of non-renewable energy will not last forever (as the name suggests). The consequence of a diminishing supply is that prices will rise exponentially. When the price of energy eventually rises, the cost of everything else will rise along with it.

Rising energy costs will inevitably lead to the dreaded ‘stagflation’, which is when prices keep increasing while the number of jobs decrease. Consumer confidence erodes, resulting in less money spent on non-essentials and companies hesitating to hire. In short, it’s any economist’s nightmare.

So, how does one shift an economy out of a period of stagflation? In theory, the supply of energy needs to be increased and the demand needs to be cut. In practice, we introduce new sources of clean energy to increase the supply and begin to make our buildings, homes, and cars more energy efficient to cut the demand. These measures, together, will proportionally drop the price of energy.

At the moment, we have multiple clean energy sources available to us. Both wind and solar power are completely feasible and great alternatives. For example, did you know that the sun emits enough energy in one day to power our entire planet for one year? So, rather than increasing the supply by looking for more oil to drill or for other ways to extract nonrenewable energy, let’s start to focus on these renewable sources.

There are certainly a few barriers to shifting our entire country to clean energy. Significant upgrades to our infrastructure will be needed to accommodate these new energy sources. Also, there is still much research to be done to ensure that any new system we implement is as efficient as possible. The good news is that the private sector will have an interest in footing the bill for the costs of infrastructure and research for a piece of the pie.

Once we realize the economic benefits to shifting our economy to clean energy, it makes perfect sense to make a short-term sacrifice for long-term prosperity. The economic benefits should be motivation enough to start shifting our economy away from non-renewable energy.

If we act soon, we can be sure that our children will have a functioning economy and, as a meager consequence, our grandchildren will still have a planet.

As we wrote a few days after the event, our encounters releaved a profound frustration on the part of progressive Canadians that despite being predominant in Canadian society, their views were relegated to opposition status in the House of Commons. It also suggested that despite their high percentage of the popular vote, Canada’s progressive parties, particularly the Liberals, lack grassroots support.

This film was shot and edited by Milan Chotai. Special thanks to Tyler B. for taking photos and arranging interviews at the Rally.

We should seize the unique opportunity that the combination of the Big Three’s impending collapse and calls for government intervention presents to transform our economy, once and for all, by allowing all Canadian manufacturers — not just Chrysler, GM and Ford — to compete for public investment. 

On Saturday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty agreed to loan $4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler, two lethargic and mismanaged companies that have yet to articulate a credible restructuring plan. And everyone agrees that this is just the beginning of a much bigger bailout package to come in the next few months.

Critics of the bailout rightly point out that it’s a band-aid solution that does nothing to make the auto sector more competitive in the long run. Indeed, the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman has colourfully observed that bailing out the Big Three would be like “pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of the birth of eBay.”  

On the other hand, advocates of the bailout, like the Editorial Board of the Toronto Star, emphasize that if the Big Three are allowed to go under, thousands of jobs would be lost and the consequences for the families affected would be devastating. Unfortunately, both critics and advocates of the bailout are right.
 
The solution, therefore, is to find a way to keep as many people employed as possible while making Canada’s manufacturing sector more profitable. We can accomplish both at the same time, but we have to realize that the status quo isn’t an option. This means accepting that Canadian autoworkers will have to change jobs, not necessarily lose them. And it means getting beyond the Big Three — allowing innovative Canadian companies to replace them by putting capital and labour to better use.

Instead of falling for the false choice, Harper and McGuinty could have made the $4 billion subject to a Canada-wide request for proposals (RFP), inviting all Canadian manufacturers to submit their plans on how they would use that money to create new jobs and make innovative products. The company (or companies) with the best proposal — the one that promised to create the most high-paying jobs and catapult Canada into the new economy — would be the beneficiary of government investment. This approach has a number of advantages over the “bailout” model.

An RFP encourages innovation on the part of all bidders, including the Big Three. Chrysler, GM and Ford would still be eligible for the money, and their dominant position in the marketplace would certainly give them a major advantage over other bidders. But it would force the Big Three to come up with an innovative plan because, for the first time, they would have to go up against the likes of Zenn, a Canadian company that manufactures zero-emission electric vehicles.

Ironically, this innovative, home-grown company has dozens of retailers in almost every U.S. state, but only one in Canada, which is located in Quebec. Companies like Zenn are the future of the automobile industry and they should have a chance at that money too. And $4 billion in the hands on a dynamic, successful company is surely a much better investment in maintaining high-skilled, well-paying, and lasting jobs. But we’ll only know for sure if everyone is given an opportunity to compete for public investment. 

Another company that could conceivably throw its hat in the ring is Innovative Hydrogen Solutions (IHS), a Winnipeg-based company whose flagship product, the I-Phi, is a hydrogen generator that significantly improves the efficiency of internal combustion engines. This amazing invention, which simply attaches to any gasoline or diesel motor, can reduce fuel consumption by up to 40 per cent and pollutants up to 100 per cent. While safe and reliable, the I-Phi isn’t yet on the market, but with a fraction of the money that government is ready to throw at the failing Big Three, IHS could change the world.

Making companies compete for taxpayer money would also shift the nature of government intervention in this crisis from a short-term rescue plan, to an enduring investment in the development of the Canadian economy. By harnessing the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of Canada’s most innovative companies, the RFP process would turn each bid into a blueprint for the future of Canada’s manufacturing sector.

Critics of a wide-open RFP may argue that other Canadian manufacturers won’t be able to hire workers laid off by the Big Three right away. Admittedly, it will take some time for capital and labour to flow to their new homes, but that transition period may be shorter than we think. The whole point of the RFP is to find out the most effective way to invest public funds. Furthermore, the limiting factor for companies like Zenn and IHS seems to be capital and labour, not the lack of a marketable product. And even if the money ultimately ends up in the hands of the Big Three, the RFP process will have pushed them to re-invent themselves through exposure to healthy competition.

Other skeptics may point out that the collapse of the Big Three will have a ripple effect throughout the economy as their vast networks of suppliers and retailers tumble as a result. But if Chrysler, GM and Ford are replaced by more innovative firms with growing markets, surely this will be to the benefit of collateral industries like parts makers. Instead of selling fewer and fewer hubcaps for the Chevrolet Impala, they’d sell more and more of them for the Zenn.   

Of course, this proposal isn’t perfect. The winners of the competition likely won’t be able to hire every former Big Three employee; many will need retraining and generous unemployment benefits until they find new jobs. But that would likely be the case under a bailout scheme as well since the consensus is that a significant contraction in the auto sector is unavoidable.     

After floating this idea with a few Canadians working in finance on Wall Street, I’m convinced that it makes sound business sense in the circumstances. Since government intervention is now certain, even those who favour bankruptcy recognize that it’s better to make many firms compete for public money than write a blank cheque to a select few. All were, however, very pessimistic about the viability of a broad-based RFP for political reasons.

Whatever its merits on paper, embarking on a process for saving Canada’s manufacturing sector that doesn’t presuppose the continued dominance of the Big Three would be decried by powerful unions like the CAW as a threat to their existence. Many autoworkers themselves, especially those in the latter stages of their careers, would be loath to support a plan that foreshadowed too much change.

As a result, Canada’s elected leaders won’t go near it, and another good idea will become a political casualty.

What we learned is that the rally and the Coalition represent a deep frustration on the part of progressive Canadians that their values are dominant in Canada, but not in Parliament. The composition of the crowd also revealed a lack of grassroots engagement which must be rectified if the Coalition stands a chance of succeeding. But the real lesson from this weekend, and the political crisis generally, is that Canada’s political system is antiquated.

(We’re in the process of editing our footage and hope to have PSB’s first video up this week. In the meantime, you can check out some photos on Flickr.)

The Crowd

Considering the cold weather, the turnout at Nathan Phillips Square was impressive. The entire square was full and there were at least 1000 people in attendance. Judging by the signs people were holding, many were affiliated with various progressive organizations, like labour unions, environmental groups, anti-war coalitions, and advocates of proportional representation.

The event was hosted by Mary Walsh, who was very funny, but took a few jabs at Stéphane Dion. When the crowd gave Dion an uninspired welcome, Walsh said “Get a good round of applause in while you can, it may not last,” alluding to his embattled leadership. When Dion took the stage, he did little to regain people’s confidence. The crowd applauded politely, but his speech was flat and unconvincing. Granted, this was definitely an NDP crowd, but even to an objective observer he was clearly upstaged by Jack Layton.

Liberals should also be concerned about the composition of the participants. There was no evidence of a Liberal grassroots presence whatsoever. If the organizations and individuals linked to the NDP weren’t there, the turnout would have been embarrassing. As the crisis gives way to a impromptu campaign, the lack of engagement on the part of Liberal supporters is a huge problem.

The lone Conservative supporter we spoke to criticized the Rally for being filled with interest groups. He claimed that the competing rally at Queen’s Park was much more grassroots. “The grassroots were over at Queen’s Park today. The people who were bused in and organized and had pre-fab signs — expensive signs — were at the Coalition rally,” said Jim.

While we weren’t at the Conservative rally, he does have a point. There were very few homemade signs at the Coalition Rally and the flags of every major labour union in country were flying.

In fact, the heavy involvement of progressive interest groups may be something the Coalition is trying to hide, since no one could tell us who the rally’s organizers were. Normally you can find this out from the camera operators, but even they didn’t know. But one thing’s for sure: the Coalition needs to engage more regular people if it hopes to maintain legitimacy.   

Why they came

The diversity of the crowd made the message of the Rally feel a little unfocused at first, but after talking to a few people it became clear that what brought them together was a deep feeling that their values are not adequately represented in Ottawa.

Equally prominent was the vitriol towards Stephen Harper; to them, he is the poster boy for everything that’s wrong with politics in Canada.

“I think this is a great opportunity to get rid of the guy who wants to kill our culture, eliminate the CBC, eliminate small parties, dominate through big money and corporations,” said Ken Sheppard.

Some, like Brendan Canning, one of the founders of Broken Social Scene, musical guests at the Rally, said they liked the idea of the Coalition because it represents a more conciliatory style of politics. “Now there seems to be something that seems a little more positive,” he said. 

Most people said that they were unhappy with Harper’s management of the economy and his unwillingness to work cooperatively with the opposition parties.

“I think we’re in the middle of a deep financial crisis in Canada…and Harper will use it as an excuse to discipline and cut back on all kinds of sectors where he has political opponents,” said Catherine.

Others, echoing one of the Coalition’s slogans — “I’m part of the 62 per cent majority” — were frustrated by the fact that their mainstream views aren’t reflected in the government.

One thing that didn’t seem to bother most people we spoke to was prorogation. Jason Collett, a guitarist with Broken Social Scene, felt that the decision to prorogue Parliament was legitimate. “This is unprecedented as we all know, so it’s a tricky one,” he said.

Many otherwise informed participants thought that Harper was elected Prime Minister and thus refusing his request would have been undemocratic. One couple we spoke to that shared this view talked at length about how coalitions function in Germany, but didn’t seem to understand that Canadians do not elect their executive branch of government.

“Only in the most extreme circumstances can you envision a case in which a Governor General, an appointed person, could have the authority to overrule an elected Prime Minister,” said the woman.

This misconception is present in both camps and is probably pervasive in Canadian society. Consequently, Canada may only have a parliamentary system of government on paper.

Talking to Mario Silva, MP for Davenport, it was clear that the focus of the Coalition is about replacing Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. “The focus has to be on the economy, jobs and why Harper…does not want to address the issues facing Canadians,” he said.

Silva’s views were representative of both Coalition leaders’ speeches, which were reminiscent of an election campaign in full swing, promising to do everything from create jobs to invest in childcare.

What it means

The Coalition’s strategy of running a pseudo election campaign against the Conservatives in the next seven weeks may not actually change the composition of the House of Commons the next time Canadians go to the polls, which could be as early as February. We already had an election on all of these issues and Canada’s electoral system produced a perverse result. What makes the Coalition parties think they’ll fair better under first-past-the-post now? If the polls are any indication, Harper is actually gaining support as a result of the mess he created.

After attending the Rally on Saturday, I’m convinced that the political crisis is a manifestation of our antiquated political system. Even though none of the participants we spoke to put it in those terms, they clearly felt frustrated by being a powerless majority. And their ambivalence toward the Governor General’s role in all this suggests that that office is irrelevant too. Although the Parliamentary system has a long history of producing stable governments in Canada, it may actually be breeding instability today.

The only hope for the 62 per cent majority is that the Coalition stays together, takes power, and governs well enough for a progressive alternative (whatever its configuration) to win the ensuing election. Failing this, or Harper’s unlikely resignation, Canada is probably in store for a series of dysfunctional Conservative minorities or, much worse, a Conservative majority.    

As a result, the quicker the Liberals can choose a new leader who inspires confidence, the better off the Coalition will be. Thankfully, that process seems to have been expedited. Then, the leaders of the Coalition must engage the real 62 per cent majority — everyday Canadians who, while not active in politics, expect their federal government to provide constructive leadership.

And while the economy will be the Coalition’s top priority, electoral reform must be on the list. Only then will the majority of Canadian voters be empowered.

Special thanks to Milan and Tyler B. for their help on this story.