This essay is excerpted from a longer manuscript and is copyright protected.

Not to be published without consent of the author.

Introduction

The course of human development stretches through millions of years of environmental and genetic feedback loops that created a variety of social systems ranging from egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands or tribes to sophisticated authoritarian technocratic societies. The latter invariably describe themselves as democratic, from the Greek 'demos', the people, and 'kratos', power or 'kratia', strength, indicating that the citizens of that particular democratic state - claims made by systems ranging from communist to capitalist - are the ones controlling the country. It is a wonderful ideal and like many wonderful ideals it falls short of its purported reach because of the realities of human nature and the manner in which societies developed.

Early hominids probably lived in small bands of wandering hunter-gatherers with a loose informal consensual organization. As bands became tribes, as decision making for larger groups became more significant for food gathering and protection against other tribes, a more formal but possibly still consensual organization formed, with elders and chiefs making final decisions, but only after everyone who wanted to do so being able to have their say. The real change away from consensual rule and an increase in class stratification would have occurred when the first tribes settled down in one spot because of rich resources that required no continual wandering - as with the Northwest coast natives of America - or because of the beginnings of agriculture which allowed for storage of foodstuffs for leaner times. Both these influences probably affected the first settlements of the Tigris-Euphrates where the first large city states of 'western' society developed. With much larger populations, with people stratified into different classes - warriors, priests, scribes, guilds, and the much larger group of peasant farmers - rule by consensus was no longer possible.

Governments took on several forms ranging from tyrannical and benevolent autocracies through to those that still maintained a modicum of citizen input, although that usually was limited to certain classes of citizens. Gradually over the millennia, then more rapidly over the centuries, the ideals of democratic government spread through Europe, by means of enlightened practitioners aided and abetted by repressed and revolting groups. Ultimately, parliamentary democracies succeeded throughout most of Europe, achieving many variations of the same form in which the people voted for their representatives to speak for them in some form of constituent assembly. All through these changes, two thing remained consistent: the rise and accumulation of wealth with those in power; and that “Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will.” (Frederick Douglas, 1857).[1] This can be viewed both negatively and positively, depending on the uses that money is put to. Most citizens do not mind paying some of their wealth to a larger functioning body that can provide protection from external threats and at the same time provide for infrastructures for business, education, health, and a safe and orderly domestic existence. Unfortunately, those in power all too often struggle to stay in power simply for power alone, and again this is a natural trait of humans not wanting to give up on their perceived status and power. This could be labelled a 'kleptocracy' - power achieved by thieving - and to the highly cynical and to the less cynical but justifiable in many cases, this adequately describes all forms of government in which wealth accumulates at the top, generally against the will of the masses, democratic or not[2] . It takes a truly enlightened leader to recognize the limits of power and use it justly - and historical records would indicate that these people are very few and far between. Wealth, in the obvious form of taxes, and in the also obvious form of rules and regulations written by those in power to protect their wealth or enhance that of their also powerful supporters, accrues to the top. Wealth and power, the two fit together rather neatly, and as much as most current governments describe themselves as democratic, they are slipping further and further away from that ideal.

Rule by the wealthy, a plutocracy, from the Greek 'plutos', wealth, is truly the form of government that has existed throughout most of the democratic era and is increasingly so with the modern (1950 - present) era's obsession with 'free trade' and 'global harmonization'. Certainly the people of the world benefit from trade, and yes it would be wonderful if all the countries of the world truly operated with the same social conditions that protected health, education, workers rights and safety, women's rights, the environment, the seniors, the poor….but the reality in opposition to the spin doctored claims of government transparency and democracy is that the plutocracy, in the form of transnational corporations achieving powers above and beyond the control of national governments, is forcefully taking over the rules and regulations of the world. They do this not for any other reason than the free flow of capital upwards to themselves, while creating a level playing field of the lowest common denominator without concern for social, environmental, or truly democratic conditions. Democracy as an ideal is wonderful, plutocracy, as a practice, rules.

Democracy - American Style

Democracy is an elusive yet highly flaunted attribute of many governments, with many willing participants at all levels, created in good part by those in power to retain the passivity and control of those of lower socio-economic standing. The United States, the putative leader of the world's democracies, has at its very base problems with true egalitarian democracy, and is currently advocating a system of trade and commerce that essentially eliminates the citizens of countries from being anything but cheap producers and consumers for the transnational corporations.

At the base of the non-democratic structures in U.S. elections is the electoral college, its purposes and shady origins apparently working to keep the ignorant masses from voting for the wrong candidate or revolting by vote for some radical minority party which could then become dominant over the two established parties. At the inception of the 'United States' there was a general sentiment that "political parties were mischievous if not downright evil" but those that condemned the parties publicly began building them privately[3]. These views probably derived from their own recent revolution and the excesses of the French revolution, as the French supported them against the British.

James Madison, in arguing for "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection"[4], argues that the public view should pass through the "medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country" and be "least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations." The latter 'considerations' could be interpreted as minority opinions, progressive rather than conservative, that the establishment did not want to acknowledge, however Madison phrases it differently, as a wealthy landowner would, that it would render decisions "superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice' as if all opposing views were wrong. Alexander Hamilton supported this view in his paper "The Mode of Electing the President"[5] saying that a "small number of persons…will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." Interesting views from statesmen from a newly revolutionary state, supported by French ideals of 'liberte, egalite, et fraternite'.

Voters of the original union were free adult males, with many states exempted for slaves, and no women were allowed to vote. Every state but New York and Virginia also had requirements for electors to be protestant, a strong contra-indication to freedom of worship and religion. The black vote returns the argument back to James Madison, a slave owner who helped develop the idea of five slaves equalling three free people, thus giving power not to the slaves, but to the slave's owners. This affected the election of 1800 in which John Adams, who owned no slaves, lost to Thomas Jefferson, who at the time owned about two hundred slaves. By the five/three rule, Jefferson received enough votes to defeat Adams. Madison had some quite open views about popular participation saying that "The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention and esteem." However his practices and objectives do not fit with that statement but could be viewed as an early form of spin doctoring.[6]

The electoral college as it now operates was established in 1845. Its original purpose, following upon the above presentations, "was to have the most knowledgeable and informed individuals…cast their votes for the president assuming that they voted solely on the basis of merit." Further it "enhances the stability of the nation by promoting a two party system - protects the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interest of minorities."[7]

These statements pose large problems for a true democracy. To assume that votes will be cast on merit is just that, an assumption, and merits can be argued backwards and forwards according to the premises underlying one's political beliefs. As well, knowledgeable and informed electors can still carry enormous biases, especially as the system has now devolved so that the two main parties appoint their electors from established politicians and party members who are already well above the ignorant rabble. 'Impassioned' third parties may have genuinely good concerns, but to be absorbed as a minority by a major party neither enhances the minority view nor contributes to the major party other than to write a few platitudes acknowledging its existence. Effectively the system reinforces the idea that those in power wish to stay in power and do so by establishing their own workable system that best suits their needs. Having gone through their own revolution, having knowledge of how British democracy had evolved through an ongoing series of revolts and demands from underneath, having seen how the idealism of the French Revolution had ended up in anarchy and slaughter, the founders of the new nation guarded themselves against further insurrection or rebellion. The electoral college works within the republic, but once again in James Madison's words there is an advantage that "a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction."[8] Certainly these words reflect that a democracy was not the intended outcome and that control of disruptive factions was.

Spin doctoring started with the Republic, the people convinced, or maybe just assured, they lived in a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. Public relations, a soft term for spin doctoring, had its big surge during the First World War with the effective use of propaganda to support the political and military views of the establishment - government and big business. This was the 'war to end wars', 'to make the world safe for democracy', voices that echo almost a hundred years later with the current events mostly centred in the Middle East. Edward Bernays, considered the founding father of the public relations industry, helped orchestrate the willingness of the American people to enter the war, and afterwards he entered the services of the big industrialists, the automobile, tobacco, petroleum, plastics, and food industries. He believed that democracies could not function without mobilizing the "real societal elite" to "direct the way for the masses to follow."[9] Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, was honoured by the American Psychological Association in 1949 for his contributions to the elitist views of controlling populations, through "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses."[10] This continues today in a culture saturated with advertising for things we do not need and for ideals that are not practiced.

This is evident in most aspects of our culture but before wandering into the realm of transnational corporations and their attitudes and attributes toward the 'global village' (an interesting spin doctored term of itself), the last U.S. presidential election reflects more of the difficulties with the electoral college. In the 2000 presidential elections, George Bush lost the 'egalitarian' popular vote by some five hundred forty thousand votes to Al Gore. With the electoral college system, Bush won thirty of the states but even with the 'winner take all' rules it all came down to Florida, which went by the smallest margin of five hundred votes to the Republicans and gave Bush the disputed victory. The United States - unlike France, Germany, and Britain who suffered through the birth pangs of nascent democracy by revolution, war, strikes, demonstrations, and, once the 'ignorant masses' became organized, through the political parties they supported - is truly an attempt to create a self-described democracy from the start, but as seen above, with controls in place to inhibit the newly subordinate masses to their own government. Currently this is a government that talks of world peace and democracy yet does not pay its United Nations fees, does not exhaust thoroughly the diplomatic resources available through the UN before acting, and has acted discriminately as to its own goals through out the world: ignoring the slaughter in Rwanda; ignoring the rigged and violent elections in Zimbabwe; supporting the Saudi reign even though they are the homeland of the strict Wahabbi sect that gave rise to the Al Qu'eda network; and further supported the Al Qu'eda and the Taliban with 'weapons of mass destruction' including chemical and biological devices in the Afghan struggle against the Soviet Union; earlier intervention in Haiti and Nicaragua to arrange 'democratic' regimes friendly to the U.S.

At a more discrete level, the U.S. government has participated in, paid money to, and otherwise supported mostly secret talks (secret at least until someone leaks them) concerning the newest and latest attempts at global control that of 'free trade' and establishing a 'global village' of an unfettered economy, one that is intended to fully complete the control of the plutocracy and truly give it the further appellation of kleptocracy. This is best seen with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) currently in place between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, but before examining some of the ramifications of that, a look at Canadian democracy needs to be made first.

Democracy - Canadian Style

Canadian democracy is based on its British heritage, with unwritten conventions combined with an historical series of acts. The unwritten conventions relate to many long term traditions that in effect have the force of law because they have been used over many generations or centuries of actual practice. Two obvious ones, so obvious that they are probably never even thought of, are: the majority of seats in the House of Parliament indicates which party is the ruling party, whether alone or in coalition with another party; and the leader of the winning party is the Prime Minister of the country. Neither of these 'rules' are written down in law or in the constitution, the overwhelming common sense of it, inherited over the years, gives true definition to the term common law in English usage. The series of acts are based on two major ones, the British North America Act of 1867, which originally combined four provinces into the new Canada, and the Constitution Act that repatriated the constitution from Britain, added the Charter of Rights, but still retains the monarchy as titular head of government. There are many other acts, before, after, and between these two that have legal binding force, most of them accessory acts for new provinces and territories.

The main problem with Canadian democracy, apart from the plutocracy aspects, are with the 'first past the post' system for electoral winners. It is much easier in Canada to have a Prime Minister, to have a ruling party that is elected by less than a majority of Canadian voters. If Canada truly had fair representation in parliament, the shape of many governments would have changed over the years, with more coalition governments and perhaps more carefully considered legislation because of that. Unlike the United States, the Canadian system is open to the ignorant masses, but with our literacy rate being so high, the masses are not so much ignorant as swayed by popular opinion just as they are elsewhere. For whatever reason, Canadians, who have in the past rejected free trade and globalization, at least according to opinion polls, still vote in governments that are pro free trade or who disclaimed free trade but went ahead with it anyway, presumably because they too had vested interests in the power structures and financial gains to be made from it. Our current government, easily first past the post in the last election and in current polls would like its citizens to believe that it is an open and transparent democracy.

Canada's Constitution Act of 1982, has in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that these rights and freedoms be extended "only to such reasonable limits proscribed by law as can demonstrably justified in a free and democratic system." The justness and validity of the system then rests on an independent and educated judicial system, and the limits and tolerances of those in power with a 'free' and 'democratic' system. The only actual 'democratic right' outlined in the Charter is the "right to vote" although the Charter does then proceed to define other rights - legal rights, equality rights, native rights - that do delineate what most liberal thinkers would consider as democratic rights.

In consideration of the right to vote, however, that alone does not make a democracy, otherwise most of the former Soviet Union would have been democratic as they voted for legislative bodies (soviets) that passed laws and regulations, as did most other countries. Also South Africa under apartheid would be democratic, and Zimbabwe has recently had elections thus defined as democratic. Democracy goes well beyond voting in two important areas: equality and mobility. To be truly democratic, there can be no social stratification and all members of all groups, classified by race or religious belief or country of origin, should be treated as equal members of the society. This social stratification cannot exist either as a law - an obviously non-democratic idea - but more carefully considered cannot exist as a body of rules that while not directly subordinating a group or class of people, ends up doing that; or even more vaguely, the stratification cannot exist as an unwritten, uneducated, prejudice that divides the public, the masses, just as effectively by innuendo and slander. Mobility refers to social mobility within a society, where hereditary class distinctions do not apply, and the population is equally given the ability to educate themselves and choose their particular line of work. Mobility also applies in a broader sense to the mobility of labour and its freedom to move where employment is. This usually stands true within a country but as economic global integration under the guiding rules of the transnational corporations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the many trade agreements including NAFTA, labour itself cannot move, creating large pools of poor disenfranchised workers. This idea will return under the discussion of NAFTA a truly non-democratic regime.

Another highly touted aspect of democracy is transparency and openness, two ideals expressed by the Canadian federal government of which it falls well short in reality. In its report to the WTO on how well it is doing with multilateral liberalization (remember this applies to money and business, not people) the government bureaucrats write that "Open and transparent exchange of information is an essential precondition to substantive civic participation in the policy development process." It then goes on to list how it is doing this, through internet websites, teleconferencing, and formal public notices, and the media.[11] All of these methods are far from democratic: the internet is a valuable tool of democracy, but it is not by any means universal, nor are the sites set up to be easily navigable; teleconferencing is hardly democratic and limits comments to various organized pundits looking to see how they can benefit from the developing rules and regulations; a public notice meets few if any criteria of democracy and certainly does not allow for a direct democratic rebuttal; the media, who at times allow comments against free trade and globalization are mainly owned by the rich and powerful who will ultimately benefit from cheap labour and a limited market.

After all this breast beating about openness and transparency the government is caught well short by a recent leak of the European Unions demands at the WTO negotiations. The leaked document indicates "there is a lot on the table at the world trade talks, which are being held behind closed doors in Geneva. Far more than most Canadians realize".[12]

Not only were the documents secret to the people of Canada, they were kept secret from certain other governments, therefore limiting the ability of the countries to negotiate and reformulate unacceptable ideas. The pre-preamble on the leaked document states "Member state are requested to ensure that this text is not made publicly available and is treated as a restricted document." Under its General Remarks it gives its purpose as trade freedom being "supported by domestic regulatory frameworks designed to ensure the achievement of public policy objectives." (emphasis added). Something that is designed to ensure previously stated objectives, and negotiated, with the consent of the Canadian government, to keep it secret, can hardly be considered democratic and transparent.[13] The list of trade items and service sectors to be de-regulated (mostly in the sense of opening them up for international corporations being able to come in and take them over - as per Accenture in Ontario and B.C. with social work and hydro authority respectively) is quite stunning, ranging from surveyors to banks, food labelling, through to environmental services, communications, and the post office.

Perhaps this why the open and transparent democratic government of Canada hosted trade talks in Kananaskis, well protected from the ignorant rabble by mountains and police security lines, or why they fenced off demonstrators behind squads of riot police in Vancouver and Quebec, or why the last round of negotiations, apart from those held secretly in Geneva, took place in Doha, where the unwashed masses could not gather to demonstrate. Under the heading of Future Policy Directions the Canadian government says its "trade policy will remain open, transparent, and inclusive, and will be guided by the same multilateral rules and principles that Canada helped to establish,"[14] such as lying during elections, passing unwanted legislation, meeting in secret, and helping the multinationals take over many sectors now protected, reasonably, as Canadian property and rights.