Found an article (“Democracy from the ground up“, which is actually an extract from a book by historian/political economist/activist Gar Alperovitz) that includes some very thought provoking points/reminders, a few snippets of which I wanted to share:
“Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam suggested that a decline in associational activity, in turn, had produced a decline in trust and ‘social capital’ foundational requirements of democracy in general. His response was straightforward: the nation should develop as many ways as possible to encourage local involvement the only way, he held, Americans could hope to renew the basis of democracy throughout the larger system.” […]
“In his study, Democracy’s Discontent, [Michael] Sandel holds that it is important to recover the meaning of the ‘republican tradition’ in American political life — a tradition that ‘taught that to be free is to share in governing a political community that controls its own fate. Self-government . . . requires political communities that control their destinies, and citizens who identify sufficiently with those communities to think and act with a view to the common good’.” […]
“City Limits, an aptly titled study by Harvard political scientist Paul Peterson, demonstrates that as a result of the underlying relationships, policy choices are often ‘limited to those few which can plausibly be shown to be conducive to the community’s economic prosperity’. Partly this is because business owners have more money, hence usually more political influence. But quite apart from such considerations, local political leaders feel they must promote economic development, and they accordingly feel they need the help of the business community.” […]
“Commonly, too, the thrust of decisions favorable to business groups radically constrains all other choices. The use of scarce resources to develop downtown areas, and especially to attract or retain major corporations, inevitably absorbs funds that might alternatively be used to help low- and moderate-income neighborhood housing, schools, and community services.”
Democracy, translated literally from Greek, means “the people’s power”. “Demos” means people, as in demographic, and “cracy” means power, as in aristocracy. Therefore, an institution that calls itself government that uses the word “leader” to describe any of its members is inherently not democratic, because “leader” implies power over the People, whereas “representative” implies a person who acts to enact the will of the People as per their wishes.
Perhaps “guide” might be a better way to describe an individual acting within a democratic society. Perhaps if Parliament were dissolved, and the Girl Guides were to instead lawfully enact the will of the People in Canada, then Canada could be called democratic. At present, calling the alleged Canadian government democratic is fraud, which is a felony. How does it feel to live in a nation whose imposed government’s existence is in itself a crime?
In comparing two differently constituted bases (plural of basis) for law, a superior standard of lawful conduct is one where, if You are adhering to the laws as prescribed, then You are providing a better guarantee of fair and respectful treatment toward your fellow human Beings, and/or your actions are less restricted, than in the other basis. That is what the Interactive Sovereign Society Constitution is to the Crown’s Canadian Constitution: a superior standard of lawful conduct, in both of the above ways. Forcing some One who is willing to abide by the laws of the Interactive Sovereign Society to remain under the governance of the Crown, especially if you have not even discerned for yourself whether the above is true, is blatant tyranny, and a crime against Humanity.
Are You aware of reports comparing the level of democratic principles being available to members of different nations, such as transparency and accountability, in which Canada is dropping not only on an objective scale, but even on a scale of comparison to other nations in the world? Does the thought of the word “tyranny” being more and more reasonably applicable to Canada’s governance concern You? Do You believe that a superior basis for lawful conduct in Canada should be adopted for Canadians if one is irrefutably available for practical and viable implementation?