To the Western Powers: Stop Imposing Colonialist Borders

As the crisis in Iraq worsens, the U.S. continues to insist that the country remain united.  But why?  As I said in a previous blog post, Iraq: A Country Never Meant to be Falls Apart, Iraq is an artificial creation drawn up by former European colonial powers without any concern for the wishes of the different sects and ethnic groups living in it.  So why, then, is the U.S. trying so hard to keep this failed state together?  The simple answer: the Americans fear the idea of self-determination.  And they're not the only ones.  To this day, the European powers have gone to great strides to control current borders, both in Europe itself and abroad.  Essentially, the West never abandoned their colonialist desire to determine the borders of other countries so long as it suits them.

The Middle East: A Land of Broken Promises

After the First World War, it seemed as if the victorious Western powers finally wised up and realized that nation-states created by means of conquest rather than consent should not exist.  Hence, they dismantled the Hapsburgs' Austro-Hungarian Empire and allowed its various peoples the right to self-determination.  The end result was the emergence of some of the modern European states that still exist today, such as the republics of Austria and Hungary.  The victors of WWI initially promised the peoples of the Middle East that they too would be given the right to form their own nation-states.  Indeed, even before the war ended, the leaders of the Arab revolt in the Ottoman Empire had reached an understanding with the British that would have seen the Arabs achieve independence.  The British also promised the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine, hence the Balfour Declaration in 1917.  As we know, however, the Western powers did not keep their word.

In fact, at around the same time that they were promising the peoples of the Middle East the right to self-determination, the British and French governments were secretly dividing the region amongst themselves.  Thus emerged the ultimate betrayal of the Middle Eastern peoples: the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which eventually led to the division of much of the region into British and French territories.  These territories were later granted independence, but the artificial boundaries that the British and French created remained, leaving peoples divided and creating new conflicts amongst different sects and ethnic groups that were forced together by the new borders.  The British also attempted to break the promise they made to the Jewish Zionist movement when they decided to appease the leaders of the Arab world.  In lieu of World War II, the British needed the oil that only the Arabs could provide, hence they curtailed Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine and reneged on the Balfour Declaration.  It was only after WWII, when the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, did the British decide to give up on their mandate in Palestine, turning the issue of Jewish independence over to the new United Nations, which eventually voted to partition Palestine and grant the Jewish people an independent state therein.

The Western Fear of Self-Determination


One hundred years after the Western powers carved up the Middle East, they are still trying to maintain the artificial borders that they created, hence the Americans' desperate attempt to keep Iraq together.  The Kurdish people, who never asked to be absorbed into Iraq or any other bordering country, have the legitimate right to an independent state of their own.  Even the leaders of Israel, America's most important ally in the Middle East, have tried to convince the Obama Administration that they should accept Kurdish independence (see: Israel Tells U.S. Independent Iraqi Kurdistan is 'Forgone Conclusion').  So why won't the Americans budge?  Well, for the same reason that France wants to keep the countries in its former colonial territory together.

    

It wasn't too long ago that the French intervened in the west African state of Mali to push Islamist terrorists out of the country's north.  After more secular Tuareg rebels seized northern Mali and proclaimed independence, the Islamists overwhelmed them and took over.  The French pushed them out, but instead of doing the right thing and supporting the Tuaregs' right to independence, they instead began assisting the Malian government to reclaim the north without any concern as to whether or not the Tuareg people wanted to remain part of Mali.  Just as the territory of the Kurdish people is divided by the borders of several countries, so to is the territory of the Tuareg.  The reality is that the Tuaregs did not and still do not want to be part of Mali or any other country drawn up by French colonists.  They want and deserve a country of their own on all of their territory.  But of course, neither the French, nor any other Western power want this to happen, just as they don't want it to happen in Kurdistan.  Why?  Because if the West allows the Kurds or the Tuaregs to be independent, it would have to give peoples still under their control the same right.



First Kurdistan, Then...

The fact is that the Western powers are loathe to see any new states emerge from their former colonial territories, or anywhere for that matter, unless they can control what happens.  Hence, it is very difficult for any people who desire a country of their own to actually achieve it.  Say, for example, that France were to support an independent Kurdistan or a separate Tuareg state.  Clearly, if they allowed either of these peoples the right to self-determination, they must also accord the same right to, say, the people of Brittany, Corsica or Alsace - all of which are now regions of France.  Similarly, if the British government were to support Kurdish or Tuareg independence, they should have to support the aspirations of sovereigntists in Scotland and Wales, right?  And how about the U.S.?  If the Americans suddenly changed their tune and opted to support the aspirations of the Kurds and Tuaregs, then clearly they would have to acquiesce to the demands of Native Americans for a return of the lands that the U.S. stole from them.  Yes, the fact is that the countries of the West will eventually have to comply with the demands of some of the peoples within their own borders for self-determination, but if they are truly democracies, then they should have no problem doing so.

Self-Determination: Resistance is Futile

The reality is that the West cannot stem the tide of self-determination.  They can only slow it down, and by doing so they harm countless lives.  There would be a lot less bloodshed if the West just allowed independence-seeking peoples, like the Kurds of Iraq or the Tuaregs of Mali, to go their own ways.  How many people have to die before the West gives up its desire to control the borders of the rest of the world?     

      

The "Islamic" Inquisition

In Muslim history, the period from the seventh century up until the thirteenth century is generally regarded as Islam's golden age - an age of learning when scholars recovered and translated the knowledge of ancient civilizations, such as Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome.  Had it not been for the work of various scholars during the height of Islamic civilization, the knowledge of ancient philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, would have been lost to the dustbin of history.  Islam's golden age was also a period of great advances in technology, astronomy, medicine and other sciences.  The economy and international trade in the Muslim world flourished.  In fact, some of the most basic foundations of early capitalism were built during Islam's golden age.  And although my knowledge of the history of Islamic civilization is limited, I do know enough to safely say that without the knowledge acquired and re-acquired during Islam's golden age, modern Western civilization as we know it today would not even exist.  Moreover, at about the same time that Islam's golden age occurred, Europe was in a period of violent upheaval and economic stagnation.  But after the thirteenth century the tide began to turn, finally culminating in the fall of Granada, Islam's last kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula, in 1492 at the hands of Spain's Christian monarchs, thus ending the so-called "Reconquista".  From this point onward, Muslim civilization began a sharp decline.  Territory that was once part of vast Muslim empires slowly became European vassals or colonies.  By the beginning of the 20th century, nearly the entire Muslim world was under the control of European powers.  Perhaps, however, the tide is beginning to turn again.

Islam Emerges From Its Dark Age Just as the Europeans Did From Theirs - By Going Back Before Going Forward

By the mid-20th century, after centuries of colonization at the hands of the Europeans, most of the Muslim world regained its independence, though they became divided into many different states with borders largely drawn up by their former colonial masters.  After they regained their independence, the Muslims undertook certain actions that very much resemble the actions taken by the Europeans after the Reconquista.  Upon driving the Muslims from the Iberian peninsula, the newly-liberated European Christians began and orgy of persecution and slaughter.  They brutally massacred, deported or forcibly converted the peninsula's non-Christian inhabitants as part of their attempt to "cleanse" Iberia and the rest of Europe of foreign influence.  And so began the heydays of what became known as the Spanish Inquisition - a period of persecution for all things and people deemed by the powerful Roman Catholic church to be non-Christian.

Similarly, once the Muslim states threw off the shackles of their colonial masters, a widespread persecution of non-Muslim peoples began, culminating in a mass exodus of Christians and Jews from much of the Muslim world.  What were, for example, large Jewish communities in places like Iraq, Yemen and Morocco are all but gone.  At the same time, long-established Christian communities, some dating back to the earliest period of Christianity, have largely vanished from the Muslim world.  Many of the aforementioned non-Muslim populations fled in the face of a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement, which as we should all know is still growing by leaps and bounds and continuing to scare or force both non-Muslims and more enlightened Muslims into exile.

There is also a persecution of modern ideas in the Muslim world, just as there was when Christian Europe was beginning to emerge from its dark age.  Whereas the world of Islam once embraced modern science and education, it is now a world in which people are killed for distributing polio vaccinations and in which girls can be killed for simply going to school and trying to get an education.  In essence, what used to be Europe's Spanish Inquisition is now the Muslim world's "Islamic" Inquisition.  I use quotations with the word Islamic because any enlightened person who knows anything about Islamic history or thought knows that what is happening in today's Muslim world is the exact opposite of what Islamic is, or at least what it used to be.

Sparks of Enlightenment

Now for the good news.  If we assume that Islam is going through the same process that Christian Europe did after emerging from its dark age, we can also conclude that the Muslim world will at some point become a more enlightened place, just as Europe eventually did.  In fact, even during the dark times of the Spanish Inquisition, there were individuals that were courageous enough to raise their heads and challenge the fanatical, conservative  religious establishment.  We know, for example, that Italian explorer Christopher Columbus sailed to the so-called New World in the same year that Muslim Granada fell to the Spaniards and the Spanish Inquisition was still in its infancy, so that he could prove that the world was round.  Columbus' discovery would of course be followed by the work of scholars like Copernicus and Galileo, who also lived during the time when new perspectives on anything were considered heresy and punishable by death.

And just as a handful of enlightened individuals arose during the Spanish Inquisition, so to have some enlightened Muslims emerged to challenge the rigidity of today's "Islamic" Inquisition - people like two of my fellow Canadians, Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah, who have openly challenged their fellow Muslims (including each other) to re-examine and re-evaluate the way Islam is interpreted and practiced.  They, like the scholars who lived in the time of the Spanish Inquisition, have also faced threats to their lives, but they have continued their work nonetheless.  And if history is any indicator, they will be vindicated just as those who challenged the Spanish Inquisition were.

Sparks of enlightenment during Islam's current inquisition can also be found in the form of whole countries.  History tells us that when the Spanish Inquisition was not even a century old, folks in some countries decided to go against the rigid Catholic doctrine that ruled over western Europe.  One of those countries was England, whose leaders decided to break with the Catholic church in the early 16th century.  For this, England was hated throughout much of Catholic Europe.  In fact, England's defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was a pivotal moment in European history as the Armada was in part an attempt to crush England's new faith and bring it back into the rigid fold of Catholicism.  A Spanish victory in 1588 would have certainly meant the slaughter of England's reform-minded leaders and perhaps even an end to the growing Reformation that was sweeping parts of Europe at the time.

Fast forward to today's "Islamic" Inquisition and you'll find one country that, like England, is also a beacon of enlightenment in a region of ignorance and intolerance.  I am referring here to Israel.  Although not a Muslim country, Israel does lie in the heart of the Muslim world and is the only democratic country therein.  As we all know, Israel is hated throughout the Muslim world, but contrary popular opinion, this hatred does not stem from the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs.  The issue of Palestinian self-determination is actually just an excuse used by people throughout the Muslim world, particularly in the Arab states, to justify their hatred.  In fact, the treatment of the Palestinians by fellow Muslims is often worse than the treatment they receive from Israel.  The real reason is for Muslims' hatred of Israel is a general hatred of non-Muslims.  So the fact that a non-Muslim state exists in the heart of the Muslim world is an abomination to Muslims who see the geographical area that encompasses the Muslim world as their exclusive domain.  Israel's victories over the forces that have tried to destroy it on several occasions are not unlike the England's victory in 1588 over forces seeking to vanquish its Reformist regime because they saw all of Europe as the exclusive domain of their rigid and intolerant Catholicism.

There are also other countries in the Muslim world where progress towards modernity is being made, though this progress has mostly taken the form of economic growth in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.  Some social and political liberalization has also taken place in states such as these, but not to the extent that economic liberalization has.  Up until recently, Turkey was the textbook example of what a modern, Muslim state should look like.  After World War I, a new, secular republic of Turkey, founded by Kemal Attaturk, was born - a country where religion and state were completely separated and where the Turks sought to do away with all the vestiges of the Islamic Ottoman Empire, even changing the script of the Turkish language from Arabic to Latin.  In recent years, Turkey has stepped back from Attaturk's modernist vision and Islamist doctrine has made a comeback with the support of a regime whose origins lie in the Islamic fundamentalist movement.  That being said, it is very common for a country or even a whole civilization to move backwards before it moves forwards.

In fact, moving backwards and then forwards is exactly what Western civilization did when it emerged from the dark age, and is just what Islamic civilization is doing now.  The West took several steps big steps backwards with the Spanish Inquisition and the persecution of modernity that it entailed, but slowly and surely began to move forward again until eventually reaching the point at which it became the world's dominant civilization.  In the same respect, the Muslim world is taking very big steps backwards with it's own "Islamic Inquisition", where modern ideas are quashed and rigid religious doctrine reigns supreme.  But even now, as I have said, some Muslim individuals and countries are making great strides towards modernity.  It will take time, perhaps a long time, but the Muslim world can, once again, take its place amongst the more enlightened regions of the Earth.                

Iraq: A Country Never Meant to be Falls Apart

It was bound to happen sooner or later.  Iraq is now on the verge of full-blown sectarian warfare pitting religious sects and ethnic groups against each other in a country that was never meant to be.  A country cobbled together by British and French colonial interests, using the remnants of the Ottoman Empire that they had captured during World War I and subsequently divided amongst themselves.  As was usually the case when drawing colonial borders, neither Britain nor France cared about whether or not the different groups that were forcibly incorporated into Iraq wanted to be part of the new country in the first place.  In fact, what is now Iraq was originally governed as three separate provinces under Ottoman rule: Mosul in the north, Baghdad in the centre and Basra in the south.  These former provinces roughly correspond to the main ethno-religious divides in Iraq today: Kurds in the north, Sunni Arabs in the centre and Shiite Arabs in the south.  This history was once referenced on the Saddam Hussein era Iraqi flag, which featured three stars representing the three former Ottoman provinces.






There have been several regime changes since Iraq was first created, but they all had one thing in common: They could only keep the country together by force.  Saddam Hussein was Iraq's last dictator.  When the U.S. and her allies toppled him in 2003, they got rid of the glue that held the country together.  Not surprisingly, the ethnic and religious tensions that had long simmered under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship resurfaced once he was removed from power.  Only Western military might prevented the country from coming apart - barely.  But now, there are no Western troops in Iraq.  Now, the Iraqis are on their own and there's no one to stop the country's different religious sects and ethnic groups from going at each other's throats with the intent of ruthlessly slaughtering one another.  So not surprisingly, Iraq's Shiite-dominated government is now fighting a brutal war with Sunni militias, the largest of which is ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a group of Islamic extremists that some people describe as being more extreme than Al-Qaeda.  In the meantime, the Kurds in the north are consolidating their de facto independence as Iraqi forces flee further south for what may be a final showdown with Sunni militias in Baghdad.  There is only one way to stop, or at least slow, what will no doubt be a heinous bloodbath: Recognize that Iraq is a product of colonialism that was never meant to exist and allow Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds go their own separate ways.

Partition is the Only Solution:

As ISIS and other Sunni militias advance towards Baghdad, the international community is struggling to come up with some kind of solution that will keep Iraq united.  But this is a futile effort.  The only plausible solution is to partition the failed Iraqi state into three separate countries.  The north for the Kurds, the centre for the Sunnis and the south for the Shiites.  The exact borders will have to be determined through negotiation between the parties concerned, but ultimately, each of the main groups will have self-determination and one will not be able to control the other.  This is the only way peace can exist, if only on a temporary basis, between the various religious and ethnic groups, for if they cannot live together in peace, then they must live separately.  Besides, they never wanted to live together anyway. 

    

Independence is Priceless

This fall, two of Europe's oldest nations, Scotland and Catalonia, will vote on whether or not they should become independent states.  Proponents of independence in both regions face heavy opposition from their respective national governments, big business and the rest of the member states that make up the European Union.  In fact, the Spanish government even refuses to recognize any sovereignty referendum in Catalonia as being valid.  So much for democracy.



Whether it's national governments, big business or the stiffs that run the E.U., the argument against independence for Scotland, Catalonia or any other distinct region of the world seeking self-determination is always pretty much the same.  More specifically, people in independence-seeking regions are always threatened with economic doom and political isolation if they opt to separate from the country in question.  If any of this sounds familiar to the folks in Canada who read this blog, I'm not surprised, because this same argument is used by Canadian federalists whenever the notion of a sovereign Quebec comes up.



It's not that this argument is incorrect.  In fact, Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec and any other region with a distinct population would find that having independence is very difficult, at least in the short run.  But should people not seek self-determination just because it might be difficult?  Absolutely not!

Self-Determination is Priceless

If you study the history of each of the world's nation-states, you would be hard-pressed to find any country that did not go through harsh times because they chose independence, especially in their early years.  In fact, if peoples around the world stopped wanting self-determination because they thought that it would be too difficult, almost none of today's nation-states would exist at all.  Just think, for example, if the Americans decided that they should not try to seek independence from the British Empire because doing so would mean grave consequences, and no I'm not talking about bad economic prospects.  I'm talking about facing the guns and soldiers of the strongest empire in the world at the time.

Fear of the consequences of independence didn't phase the founders of Israel either.  The Israelis, like the Americans, were outnumbered and outgunned.  They faced the armies of several Arab states.  But unlike the Americans, they also faced the threat of extermination for seeking independence on their own land.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if peoples are willing to go to war and risk death or even extinction so that they can achieve self-determination, then the threat of economic hard times and political consequences shouldn't seem so scary.

Short Term Pain for Long Term Gain

Yes, it's true that if peoples like the Scots, the Catalans and the Quebecois choose independence, they may go through some difficult times.  I know of very few countries whose early years were not beset by struggle of one kind or another.  But economic and political struggles are nothing compared to what some nation-states have had to go through in exchange for their freedom.

Indeed, freedom is something that isn't free at all.  It always comes with risk, challenges and sacrifices.  Whether or not a nation-state succeeds depends on how its people meet those risks and challenges and how willing they are to make sacrifices for their country to succeed.  At the end of the day, one can't put a price on a people's right to independence and self-determination, so whatever a people needs to do to gain and maintain their freedom is worth whatever consequences may come.     

  

Time to Hit Hamas and Hit Them Hard

It's official.  Israel's government is now saying Hamas carried out the abduction of three young Israelis.  I'm not surprised, nor should anyone else be.  Ever since abducting Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists have been attempting to kidnap more Israelis so that they can exchange them for fellow terrorists now in Israeli jails.  We should also remember that just days before the kidnapping, members of the international community, including the Americans, were toasting the national unity government that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his rivals in Hamas had recently established.  Leaders around the world were screaming at Israeli Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu and his government to restart peace talks with the new, Hamas-backed Palestinian regime.  Even one of his coalition partners, Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party, threatened to pull out of the government if Netanyahu did not start talking to the new Palestinian government supported by Hamas.  Nevertheless, Bibi, as many of us Israelis like to call him, resisted both the external and internal pressure put upon him.  And now we know why.

Hamas' new arrangement with Abbas changed nothing about the terrorist organization's nature and its intentions, which are of course to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and create an Islamic state in its place.  Bibi knew this, but as is often the case, many people didn't want to believe him.  Now that Netanyahu has proven himself right, again, on the subject of how to deal with terrorists, it is time for Israel's government to show unity and do whatever it takes to crush Hamas once and for all.

Indeed, there may never be a better time to destroy the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Not only will a swift, decisive and fatal blow against Hamas unite the Israeli people, but it will also earn praise, albeit that of a quiet nature, from governments throughout the region who are struggling with their own Islamist terrorists.  Egypt's military-backed government, for example, has spent about a year decimating the ranks of the country's Muslim Brotherhood, most of whose prominent figures are now in jail.  Many have been sentenced to death.  I would encourage Israel to follow the same root that the current Egyptian regime has taken to imprison and kill every Islamist terrorist until there are no more.

               

In other words, Israel should arrest, jail and if necessary, kill every member of Hamas and any other Islamist terrorist organization in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and inside the Green Line until they are never heard from again.  Furthermore, Israel should compel the Palestinian Authority led by Abbas to terminate its unity deal with Hamas and assist in the liquidation of the Islamists.  If the PA refuses to co-operate, Israel should respond with punitive measures, including the gradual annexation of areas of the West Bank in which there is a Jewish majority.  Doing this will send the Palestinians a serious message that if they will not agree to root out the terrorists in their midst, Israel will do it for them and they will slowly lose the territory that they hope to retain for a state of their own.  We will then see what is more important to the Palestinian people: safeguarding the lives of terrorists who jeopardize their quest for self-determination, or ridding themselves of these same terrorists so that they can enjoy a peaceful, independent state alongside Israel.  The choice will ultimately theirs to make.  Let's hope they choose to do the right thing this time, because the Palestinians have an infamous history of making bad choices.    

Ontario Election 2014: Another Uninspiring Flirtation With Democracy

So another provincial election has come and gone.  From my perspective, it was a rather dull affair, but I guess you could say that about most elections in Canada.  Anyhow, for those of you who were paying attention to the results that poured in on June 12th, you know that the Ontario Liberal Party, to the surprise of many, managed to earn a majority mandate that will prolong what has already been over a decade in power for them.  Most of the pollsters and many experts did not believe that this could happen and instead predicted a minority government of some sort.  Personally, I thought that there was a chance the Grits could snag a majority and it looks like I was right.

Better the Devil You Know

I certainly have no love for the Ontario Liberals.  In fact, I took every opportunity I could to bash them on my Facebook page for their record of scandals, fiscal mismanagement and nanny statism.  Nevertheless, I didn't like any of the alternatives either.  Whereas I would normally vote Conservative in a provincial or federal election, I felt I couldn't do that this time because of what the Tories planned to do in regards to education, like cutting the 30% tuition rebate for post-secondary students, or increasing class sizes in Ontario's schools.  I do work in the field of education after all.  And I obviously wouldn't vote NDP, seeing as how the Grits stole most of their bad policies from them anyway, not to mention the fact that the Dippers kept Premier Kathleen Wynne and her cronies in power for so long.  I ended up declining my ballot.  In other words, I voted "none of the above".

I believe that like myself, other Ontarians had no love for the Liberals, but found the alternatives to be even worse.  Tory leader, Tim Hudak, ran on a campaign of austerity to fix Ontario's economy and get the province's soaring debt and deficit under control.  His platform was very similar to that of former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, lacking in compassion and written from a strictly dollars and cents perspective.  Wynne's Liberals knew this, so they made sure that the comparison between Hudak and Harris stuck.  And stick it did.  Many Ontario voters had no desire to the return to the slash and burn days of the former Tory premier, so they could not bring themselves to vote for Hudak.  The other alternative, Andrea Horwath's New Democrats, were a long shot to win this election, although I did think they still had a slim chance.  The main problem for them was that the Grits stole their thunder by governing with the same radical, leftist ideology that normally characterizes the NDP.  Premier Wynne and the Liberals decided to stick to that ideology during the campaign, leaving the New Democrats to try and find another way to distinguish themselves from the Grits.  I'm not too surprised that the Liberals ripped off the NDP's ideology and policies.  After all, the Grits are notorious plagiarists, routinely latching on to the ideas of other parties and passing them off as their own (think Tommy Douglas' pitch for universal health care).  Horwath responded to this predicament by trying to move her party further to the right - a move for which she was lambasted by many in her party.  Predictably, this bout of disunity amongst New Democrats  made its rounds in the media and negatively impacted the party's prospects in the elections.  Moreover, Premier Wynne and the Liberals managed to convince voters that by voting NDP, they would be giving the election to Hudak's Tories.  Ah yes, the old strategic voting scare tactic, which we see in many elections and which we will continue to see unless we get rid of our ridiculous electoral system.  Anyhow, Ontario voters, angry with the Liberals, but more scared of Hudak and willing to vote strategically to keep him out, decided to go with the devil they knew instead of the one that they didn't. 

Poor Choices and Disenchanted Voters

This year's provincial election was yet another example of how pathetic Canadian politics is.  It was another election of lousy choices and voters who just wished that our politicians didn't suck so much.  The disenchantment of voters in this province is reflected in this past election's voter participation rate.  Just over half of Ontario's eligible voters, about 52%, went to cast ballots this time around.  And believe it or not, this is actually an improvement, because in the last provincial election, less than half of eligible voters, around 48%, cast ballots.  In fact, it's the first time since 1990 that voter participation hasn't gone down.  Still, having nearly half of the province's electorate stay at home on election day doesn't bode well for democracy.  I believe that everyone should take advantage of our fundamental right to elect our leaders, even if they just show up to decline or spoil their ballot, but I don't blame those who choose not to vote, especially when I look at the idiots they have to choose from.  And even if there is someone you want to vote for, that person or party may not have a chance in hell of getting elected if they're not with one of the three big, fat cat parties.  I'm speaking, of course, of the Liberals, the Tories and the New Democrats.

As always, I place the blame for lack of voter participation squarely on two factors: Uninspiring politicians and Canada's ridiculous, winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system.  Unfortunately, there's not much we can do to alleviate the first factor negatively impacting voter participation.  We just have to hope that better, more inspiring leaders will arise in the future.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath.  The good news, however, is that we can do something about our electoral system.  We can change it so that it more accurately reflects the popular will of the electorate.

Making Every Vote Count Will Boost Voter Participation

Think about this for a minute:  Premier Wynne's Liberals were re-elected with a majority government with just under 39% of the popular vote.  Should one party be able to govern unhindered for up to five years when they did not earn a majority of voter support?  I think not.  And what about the nearly 5% of voters whose choices will have no representation, like the poor saps who voted for the Green Party?  Shouldn't their votes count for something?  Unfortunately, they don't.  In fact, unless you voted for the winning candidate in your riding, your vote didn't count either.

I don't know about you, but I think a party that governs with a majority in the legislature should have to receive the backing of the majority of the voters.  And if they can't do that, then they should not be governing, unless of course they are willing to share power with other parties in a bloc for which the total number of votes they received is more than half of the votes cast.  This is a true majority government - a government backed by the majority of voters, not the manufactured majority that Ontario voters just put back into power.

I think it is logical to assume that if electors knew that their votes would count, no matter who they voted for, they would be more inclined to exercise their fundamental democratic right to choose their leaders.  But if we want all votes to count, we will have to change our electoral system and adopt a fairer system; one that involves proportional representation or ranked balloting, both of which more accurately reflect the will of the electorate.  Unfortunately, however, it is unlikely that any of the three fat cats, whether they're Liberal red, Tory blue or NDP orange, will move to change the way people in Ontario, let alone the rest of Canada, elect their politicians.  And why would they when our current system gives these parties the chance to run their own one-party dictatorship for up to five years at a time?  If they did change the system, they might have to share power with some of the little guys, like the Green Party, and they certainly don't want to do that when they can keep all the power to themselves.

Let's face it.  Unless some really charismatic and principled new leader comes along with the courage and support to change the way we elect our governments, we will keep voting the same way we have since confederation in 1867.  Hence, voter participation rates will continue to be low - unless of course we force people to vote.

Mandatory Voting: The Cop-Out Solution

Some folks, like The Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui, believe that voting should be mandatory (see: Canada should make voting mandatory).  He does talk about the need for electoral reform, implying that it might boost voter participation.  He also says, however, that making voting mandatory is the most "persuasive" solution to low voter turnout.  This solution, I believe, is no solution at all, but rather a cop out.  It's as if a person or company with a product that doesn't sell decided to try and force people to buy their product, instead of improving that product to make it more attractive to would-be buyers.  Actually, there's a more practical analogy I can use, which involves one of our other fundamental rights: free speech.  We all know that in a democracy, everyone has the right to say what they want and to speak freely about what they think and feel.  However, no democratically-elected government in their right mind would ever try and compel people to say what they think.  In other words, while we have the right to free speech, we also have the right to keep our mouths shut and not speak if we don't want to.  Hence, I believe that although we have the right to vote, we should also have the right not to.

So contrary to what folks like Haroon Siddiqui might tell you, the only just solution to low voter turnout, short of more inspiring politicians, is not to make voting mandatory; it's to make voting more worthwhile by reforming our electoral system to make every vote count.        

Unions: Part 2

In my last post, I talked about the relevance of unions and the difference between public and private sector unions.  For this post, I'm going to continue on the unions theme because there are still some things I want to discuss.  Let me start with a personal story.  In 2004, I worked on a construction site in Brampton where a new housing subdivision was being built.  Among the folks I worked with was a guy named Jeff, who was using the money he was making from working on the site to help finance his future education.  One day, a person from the construction union arrived on the site and started threatening him, telling him that if he didn't join the union, he could not work on the site.  I tried to plead with this union person to give Jeff a break because he was using the money from the job to pay for school.  But the union big boy would have none of it and simply repeated to me what he said to Jeff.

Unfortunately, this kind of situation that my former work colleague found himself in is not uncommon.  In many workplaces, especially in the public sector, union membership is mandatory and there's nothing a would-be worker can do about it.  He or she must join the union or not be allowed to have the job in question.  The same goes for the employers.  Once a collective bargaining agreement is concluded between the employer and the union, the employer in question faces severe restrictions on who they can hire to do the required work.  It can also be difficult to get rid of a unionized employee, even if he or she is not up to the job.  In fact, in unionized workplaces, it's often not how good you are at your job, it's how long you've been in the union that determines your prospects for work.  I am, of course, referring to the concept of seniority.  This is what drives a lot of people crazy and makes people hate the unions.

I don't know about you, but shouldn't the best person for the job get that job?  I think so, but unfortunately, a lot of the unions don't.  And for those folks who happen to be looking for their first full-time job, unions can be a real impediment.  Say, for example, that you're a new teacher in Ontario.  You just got your teacher's certification and are ready to begin your career.  Unfortunately, you're going have a very steep mountain to climb.  Not only is there a surplus of new teachers, but there are also a whole bunch of older teachers holding onto their jobs.  Obviously, you can't blame them for this, it's just human nature.  The problem is that some of these older teachers may not be that great at their jobs.  I graduated from a public high school and I can tell you that there were a couple of older teachers there that shouldn't have been there in the first place.  But it didn't matter how bad they were, because of course they were in the profession for a long time and hence had the seniority in their union to stay where they were.  In the meantime, younger teachers, like the unfortunate man who taught me economics in my last year of high school, were the first ones to be laid off whenever cutbacks needed to be made.

The unions are very hesitant to use the term seniority when describing how people who have been long-time members get to keep their jobs while folks who are not fortunate enough to have been in the union long enough don't.  Instead, they like to use another term: job security.  Yes, I do believe that everyone deserves the right to a decent salary to support themselves and their families, but I don't believe that you're entitled to keep a job just because you've been doing it for a long time and regardless of how good you are at it.  Going back to my teacher example, I have Ontario Certified Teachers working in my company because they can't find jobs.  And one of the reasons they can't find jobs?  They are blocked by a union culture that rewards seniority over merit.

Forcing Workers to Join Unions and Contribute Money to Them is Undemocratic, Especially When the Unions Exceed Their Mandates

One of the fundamental freedoms that we should all cherish is the freedom of association, which of course includes the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining.  However, shouldn't this freedom also include freedom from association?  That is, the freedom not to join an association, whether it's a union or some other form of group.  It's simply unfair for any worker, especially a person looking for their first full-time job, to be required to join an organization that they may have no interest in joining just so they can be gainfully employed.  Forced membership in any association is unbecoming of a democracy and more characteristic of a dictatorship.


In fact, in the case of unions, not only are regular working folks faced with joining an association they may not agree with.  They're also forced to give money to that association, and they may not agree with how that money is spent, especially if it is spent on causes that have nothing to do with defending the rights of the union's members.  Take, for example, an incident last year where the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) published a newsletter in which it accused Israel of war crimes (see: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/06/postal-union-cupw-slammed-for-anti-israel-newsletter).

I use this example, not simply because I am an Israeli who supports his country, but also because I resent a public sector union using the dues from their members, who are paid with my tax dollars, to finance newsletters that have nothing to do with defending their rights.  The point is that unions exist to protect the rights of the working people whom they represent and from whom they collect dues.  They should not be using those dues to pay for causes that have nothing to do with protecting their members' rights, especially if they happen to be a public sector union whose dues ultimately come from taxpayers.

Some would even argue that during the current provincial election campaign, unions have exceeded their mandate by openly campaigning against Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives.  Yes, I do believe that during this election, the unions are pulling out all the stops to make sure that the Tories don't get elected and that they can continue to get much friendly treatment from Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberals.  However, I believe that they are well within their rights to do this as whoever forms the next provincial government certainly does have a bearing on the rights of Ontario's public sector workers.  And if the public service unions think that they will get a better deal from the Grits than from the other parties, it's their prerogative to support them.  Personally, I don't think the honeymoon between the Liberals and the public service unions will last if Wynne's government does get re-elected.

Time to End Mandatory Union Membership and Contributions

I believe it's time to give all workers, both in the private and public sectors, a choice of whether or not to be part of a union, and that choice should not cost them a job.  A fairer deal would allow someone to opt out of joining a union and paying union dues in exchange for not being entitled to all the benefits that the union in question bargained for.  It's basically a trade-off.  Be part of the union, pay union dues and get all the benefits of a unionized employee, like wage guarantees, health coverage and paid vacation time, or decide not to be part of the union and waive the benefits that union membership would give you.  As I have said before, I firmly believe that forming unions and collective bargaining are fundamental rights.  However, just because we have rights doesn't mean we should be compelled to exercise them.  For example, we have the right to speak our minds, but that doesn't mean we have to.  We can keep our mouths shut and keep what we think to ourselves.  In the same respect, although we do have the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, we should also be free not to do so.  After all, democracy is all about choice, isn't it?