Surprise Attacks
By Peter Ewart
Monday, August 24, 2009 03:43 AM
The speed of the flip-flop has been quite remarkable, even by British Columbian standards. Only several months ago just before the provincial election, the BC Liberal Party was clear that a “harmonized GST”, otherwise known as the HST, was “not something that is contemplated in the BC Liberal platform.”
Yet here we are just a little over three months later and the government has announced that, indeed, it will be bringing in the HST, despite the fact that it is massively opposed by most sections of the electorate.
What we are experiencing is another “surprise attack” by government against its citizens. The BC Liberal government has become famous for such surprise attacks, the most notable being its flip flop on the sale of BC Rail.
Such attacks, which amount to a kind of conspiracy against the people, are all too common, not only in British Columbia, but in Canada as a whole and other countries. One of the masters of this technique was Pierre Elliot Trudeau who campaigned in the 1974 election against “wage and price controls,” only to bring them in once he was in office. And then, in 1991, there was the Brian Mulroney “Goods and Services Tax”, the notorious GST.
Recently, in the U.S., we have been treated to the spectacle of both the Bush and Obama governments opening the public treasury to the parasitic interests of the big financial institutions, the very institutions which helped spark the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. These bailouts were carried out, despite massive opposition by the populace across the country. Interestingly enough, it is the “fall out” from this bail out that is causing so much trouble for Obama’s so-called health care “reform.”
These “surprise attacks” are not just a question of some “bad” politicians. They are also indicative of major defects in representative democracy itself and the “party” system of government. Under this system, governments are voted into power, and then become a virtual dictatorship for four years. Such an arrangement favours narrow, anti-popular interests such as the Wall Street bankers, the owners of CN Rail, and others, whose hidden agendas triumph over everyone else’s.
What about the role of the “official” opposition parties? Don’t they provide a check and balance for the party system? Not really. Under the current system, the “governing” party and the “opposition” party act more like a tag team than anything else.
For example, when the Brian Mulroney Conservatives brought in the highly unpopular GST several decades ago, the Jean Chretien Liberals appeared to vehemently oppose it and openly said that they would get rid of it if they were elected. Well, they were elected, but they left the tax in place.
What about the BC NDP and the proposed HST? The NDP is making great political hay with their opposition to the tax and are calling for the Liberal government to scrap it. This is all well and good. However, if the Liberals bring in the HST during their term in office, will the NDP eliminate it if they are elected to power in the next election? Indeed, it is interesting to note that the NDP Manitoba government is said to be seriously considering bringing the HST into that province.
The BC NDP played a similar role in the controversy over the sale of BC Rail. They, too, spoke out against the sale, but when push came to shove, they refused to commit to its cancellation if elected to office. Instead, they proposed an “inquiry,” despite the fact that a broad section of the populace from workers to business people were calling for outright cancellation.
Where the issue of “surprise attacks” becomes particularly dangerous is on the question of war. Under present governmental structures, it is very easy for governments to plunge their countries into wars and invasions, even when their own people are strongly opposed.
We live during times when the international order is in a state of flux, of “disequilibrium,” when some powers are rising and others are declining. Historically, this is often the time for major, sometimes catastrophic, wars. For the last 60 years, we have seen many wars launched by big powers against smaller, weaker ones. But now we are entering a period when big powers could well be facing off against each other. With today’s technology, such wars would be disastrous. Yet governments, using deception and “surprise attacks,” can launch them practically at will, as can be seen in the invasion of Iraq and other countries.
To counter these anti-democratic tendencies, it is not a question of simply having an election and handing power over to this party or that party. Rather, we need to broaden and deepen the democratic process itself, so that the will of the people can be more effectively expressed, and so that people can exert more control over governments. This is not an easy question, but it is certainly one for these times.
In regards to the HST, some people are proposing a provincial referendum of some kind, and others like the idea of using the Initiative and Recall Act (although its stringent requirements make using it successfully a tall order). These sound like good ideas. If the HST is so much needed, why not put the question to the people? And while we are at it, perhaps we should also think about the larger issue of further deepening the democratic process and ending the practice of government “surprise attacks.” Our future as citizens of the province and of the world, could depend upon it.
Peter Ewart is a writer and community activist who lives in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: charles on August 24 2009 5:06 AM