TML: The Marxist-Leninist Party of
Canada is
categorically opposed to Stephen Harper's use of the Royal Prerogative
to prorogue parliament. Can you explain your stand?
Sandra L. Smith: At the most
elementary level we
are categorically opposed to tyranny, the use of impunity and
self-serving assertions of "exceptional circumstances" to serve the
interests of the U.S. empire, foreign monopolies and an agenda which is
of no benefit to Canada
or her people.
We are also concerned about the ever deepening
political and
constitutional crisis. Like others, we would like parliament to work
but what precisely does this mean? Work for what and for whom? What
concrete measures will "make parliament work?"
The prorogation is a conundrum. It shows above all else
how
ineffective our parliamentary system has become. No amount of yelling
from the sidelines about "betrayal of our democracy" will change the
fact that there is no effective parliamentary opposition to the Party
in Power and that all the parties
in the House are stuck representing a minority percentage of voters.
The Party in Power, despite its alleged monolithic
evangelical
base, remains stuck in minority territory. Meanwhile, the so-called
opposition is split into parliamentary factions, the Liberals and NDP
whose extra-parliamentary support, their mass membership, is also stuck
in minority percentages, while
Quebec remains out of reach for the so-called major parties as a result
of the failure to resolve the constitutional crisis.
The constitutional crisis came to a head with the 1982
patriation
of the Constitution without accommodating the nation of Quebec. Since
then, the crisis has spilled over into the political and electoral
process. The crisis of the political and electoral system deepened with
the non-functioning of the system
where the Loyal Opposition is supposed to provide an alternative to the
party-in-power. The people of Quebec have rejected representation in
the House of Commons by those political parties that supported the
patriation of the constitution in 1982. In the 1993 election, the old
PC's were reduced to 3 seats, which
constituted their historical demise. The Bloc Québécois
formed the
Official Opposition, meaning that the theory of governance and a system
based on it whereby those Canadians not represented by the Party in
Power were represented by the Official Opposition also faced its
historical demise.
While the Liberal Party formed majority governments
under Jean
Chrétien, its refusal to renovate the political process on a
democratic
basis to vest sovereignty in the people gave rise to its ongoing public
disintegration, which has not been a pretty sight at all. Jean
Chretien's boorish attempt to interfere
in Quebec's internal affairs with his so-called Unity Rally to subvert
the Quebec referendum was followed with the sordid sponsorship scandal
with brown envelops of cash changing hands and a fratricidal war
erupting between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Then Jean
Chrétien
attempted to cover up the sponsorship
scandal with a self-serving reform of the electoral act, which heavily
increased public subsidies to political parties because they have no
mass support or ability to function on a self-financing basis. Then the
Liberals issued repeated pledges of renewal only to end up with the
status quo by electing Stéphane Dion as
leader even though he is an arch-enemy of constitutional renewal and
the emergence of a modern state in which the people are the
decision-makers. After this failed, came the attempt by the
Chrétien,
Rae, Power Corporation Desmarais faction to form a parliamentary
coalition with the NDP and Bloc to defeat Stephen
Harper. This fell apart even within the Liberal Party when it was
opposed by the so-called right wing of which John Manley emerged as a
spokesperson. This led to a coup d'état within the party which
imposed
the reactionary pro-torture, pro-empire Michael Ignatieff as its new
patriarch whose stunning ignorance
of what it means to represent Canada has made him ever more inept as a
leader than even Stéphane Dion and his dog Kyoto!
Meanwhile Stephen Harper revels in the lack of an
opposition and
pursues whatever righteous path his evangelical conscience and
"Dominion theology" dictate.
Of course Canadians "want parliament to work" but it
won't because
it can't. The parliamentary system was based on bourgeois factions
entering into reasonable accommodations. This is why in the past during
a minority government the parties in the opposition could indeed keep a
minority government
in check and it was even possible to legislate Medicare and such
things. But today we have a "cartel party system" where together those
parties keep themselves functioning with state subsidies, deal-making,
etc. Their factional interests are so entrenched that even though a
parliamentary coalition was the only way
to hold the Harper government to account, the coalition could not even
coalesce! The "right-wing" of the Liberal Party is merely interested in
competing with Harper for power. Its agenda in terms of paying the rich
and annexing Canada to the U.S. war machine is essentially similar.
This wing did not permit the
coalition to be formed. The so-called left-wing of the Liberal Party,
which spearheaded the attempt to form the coalition, faced an NDP that
is itself split between a "right-wing faction" of wannabe Liberals and
a "left-wing" "grassroots" contingent for whom it is anathema to get
into bed with the Liberals. Meanwhile,
the English Canadian chauvinism of both the Liberals and NDP is so
profound, they could not stand up to the wild accusations of the
Harperites about being in bed with the "separatists."
A serious parliamentary coalition would have required
serious
measures in which not just cabinet posts were allocated based on the
relative strengths of each faction but each faction would agree not to
run more than one candidate in each riding so as to elect an effective
opposition. In fact, why not
elect a majority government? But it fell apart ingloriously to say the
least and it means today no strong opposition exists and Stephen Harper
rules virtually unopposed and has now used the Royal Prerogative to
prorogue parliament for the second time, besides committing many other
abuses of power.
TML: Could you further elaborate on
why the coalition failed to coalesce?
SLS: Look at the rallies the so-called
coalition
forces tried to convoke across the country a year ago to provide the
Governor General with proof that they represented the legitimate
majority in parliament and should be invited to form the government.
Those parties could not rally
any convincing support because they are not mass parties, they do not
have mass support. The atmosphere was reminiscent of the time of the
Charlottetown referendum in 1992 -- the majority of Canadians were
seeking information about what was going on. They wanted to participate
in setting agendas themselves, not vote a secret deal up or down.
Canadians do not want to divide
behind this or that self-serving
faction. During the referendum, our Party made a great effort to inform
Canadians about what
was at stake and involve them in the debate both during the referendum
in 1992 and last year; the coalition did nothing of the sort. It was a
still-born flash-in-the-pan affair. Some members were so desperate they
gave the George Bush logic --
"You are either with us or with Stephen Harper. It's now or never."
Well it wasn't "now" and as for the "never," we are now witnessing
round two, this time based on the twitter methods spearheaded by the
marketing agencies that fashioned the Obama campaign in the U.S., which
have become the stock in trade
of all the political parties receiving state subsidies. By the way, the
Liberals are counting on a triumphant emergence from their identity
crisis by calling the use of modern technology such as twitter, a
renewed political process, even though it removes the citizen from the
decision making process in a manner from
where there is no return.
TML: The Facebook group Canadians
Against
Prorogation of Parliament (CAPP) claims to have 200,000 members. This
is said to be more followers than all the major political parties
combined. Can you comment?
SLS: It certainly shows how few people
in Canada belong to political parties! However, this figure is given to
demonstrate the
significance of organizing on Facebook as a democratic force. In a
similar vein, it is said that roughly twice as many people watched the
most recent season premier of "American Idol" as voted in the last
federal election but these figures
do not explain the situation. With all due respect for any non-partisan
youth implicated in this organizing drive, modern technology has to be
in the service of a project. To introduce twittering as a new political
process will not give us a modern democratic political process neither
will forcing people into voting to
bring the numbers up to match that of a television program.
At the end of the day, the basic problem with these
rallies and
organizations based on new technology remains that unless their aim is
clear, where will the process take them. The rallies are expressing
opposition to Harper's prorogation. Good. That is very necessary. But
from that platform to say that
democracy must be restored by lifting the prorogation begs the question
why democracy has been hijacked and by whom. What social force is
behind this and what does it stand to gain? Without answering these
profound questions, the rallies and the facebook group will not restore
democracy. If they could, then
the so-called chastened Stephen Harper from one year ago should have
stopped his tyrannical ways.
Dealing with the rallies, while many participants are
seriously
opposed to the attempt of the Harper government to establish a
permanent state of exception, where he can do whatever he wants in the
name of national security etc, certain self-serving elements
erroneously believe that a mass base can
be concocted out of thin air. That is simply not true. A serious
nation-building program is needed to constitute a serious opposition.
Only the working class can spearhead such a project because workers are
the producers of Canada's wealth; they have a stake in the country, its
resources, in manufacturing and in providing
a future for their children and security for their parents and their
own old age. It is as simple as that. Decision-making in the hands of
the working class will serve the Canadian people and transform trade
and state-to-state relations with the rest of the world to one of
mutual benefit. The political factions of the ruling
class presently in parliament can say whatever they want about
prorogation and Harper in general because at present the working class
deprives itself of political power. Thinking of the story of the
emperor's new suit of clothes, it is the working class that is naked
not the emperor. The working class is not organized
in its own interests; it is naked and without power but is supposed to
fancy itself
in a snazzy gown as an adjunct of the Liberals or NDP and Bloc. It is
fooling itself by saying the emperor is naked when workers are the ones
who are naked and without any power. The point is not that the rulers
are not exposed when they do
bad things such as proroguing Parliament. The point is that they have
all the power they need to do these bad things and get away with it
while the working class at present has no political power to stop them.
To keep repeating how bad Harper is underscores the powerlessness of
the working class. It is not a matter of believing Harper
must change. It is the working class which has to assume its proper
leadership role in society.
What do the Liberals and NDP propose to make parliament
work? For
instance, Michael Ignatieff declared that Canadians don't want an
election, they want an alternative. That is so stupid. If Ignatieff and
the Liberals were an alternative, we could have elections! In Canada,
elections are held to either
re-elect the government or elect an alternative. Where is the
alternative? For his part, Jack Layton says Canadians want parliament
to work. Well, it is not working! How does Mr. Layton analyze the
situation? He doesn't. He just blames Stephen Harper and rues the day
the coalition did not coalesce because his chances
of getting the cabinet positions he coveted went out the window.
TML: What then should the people do?
What in your opinion is the alternative?
SLS: It is important that workers,
youth, women
and others across the country who care about the future have discussion
amongst themselves. To permit a twitter political process to dominate
in the name of being youthful and modern is to permit a hidden agenda.
If workers establish
a political agenda beginning with the need to constitute themselves as
the government, they could use modern technology to the hilt but modern
technology alone does not constitute a democratic political process.
Excitement and twitter on their own will be lethal to the people's
striving for empowerment. Look at
the chaos caused by the colour revolutions in Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet republics based on these modern methods.
Workers are already strengthening their consciousness
and
organization in the struggle against the anti-social offensive where
the demands to subordinate the economy to meet the needs of the
producers and their society are already prevailing. Workers are
militantly opposing the program to pay the
rich and serve monopoly right. They oppose the ruling class drive for
annexation and war. Now, in addition, the workers must organize
themselves into committees for democratic renewal with the explicit aim
of persuading themselves that they must lead Canada. They must run for
election across the country to form
the government. This begins with the aim of defeating the Harperites by
forming an alternative parliamentary official opposition. Clearly, once
workers set their mind to it, organize their democratic renewal
committees and form the opposition, then they can make the next step
and form the government! It can be
done because it must be done!
TML: So the alternative is for the
workers to work out how to get elected?
SLS: Yes. The workers must persuade
themselves
that within this cartel party system there is no alternative. If they
continue to play the cartel party game, they will remain naked and
powerless. To create an alternative they must create a new equation
because all these bourgeois
political parties are themselves in crisis. They can't analyze. Every
problem is reduced to a statement like saying that the cause of poverty
is lack of money. This is not analysis. To analyze means to acknowledge
that the cause of poverty is the man-eating system of exploitation and
oppression and see what specifically
the workers can do to turn things around. The same is true with
renewing democracy. It is not enough to say that prorogation is bad and
Harper should stop his bad practice. A different vision of democracy is
required, an alternative way of choosing candidates, funding the
process and not the parties and all the other
features that need to be discussed and brought into being. It is
workers and others organized into democratic renewal committees who can
and must become an effective official opposition and then the
government. Taking that first step of discussing and organizing is what
it means to occupy the space for change.
Miners, steelworkers, public service providers and all other working
Canadians are in a serious headlong battle over whose definition of
democracy will prevail.
TML: What do you propose for those
participating in the rallies?
SLS: Serious elements participating in
the rallies
should pose to themselves the question: What next? We call on them to
tackle the most serious problem facing the polity - that of an
alternative they need to create to provide the political and
constitutional crisis with a solution.
The country is in a profound political and constitutional crisis. It is
not just prorogation; the cartel party system itself is in crisis.
Serious discussion should be held about the underlying premises. To
simply say, "Save our democracy," without answering the question of
what that democracy is and how it can be renewed
cannot be considered serious.
An important movement of Canadians has raised the
question, "Whose
Democracy?" and it has provided an answer, "Our democracy!" The
movement has rejected this current democracy that has instituted
monopoly right over the economy, over public right and over all the
affairs of state. The movement
rejects this democracy that has gone rogue and asks the question: how
do you "save" a democracy gone rogue? You don't. You build an
alternative, a renewed democracy! I call on workers and others who are
concerned with the failure of this rogue democracy to join and help
build Committees for Democratic Renewal.
Let us together build a workers' official opposition.
