Sir John A. and the Global Village

If Sir John A. MacDonald visited Canada today, he'd be overwhelmed by the changes. Nineteenth century’s rural society has transformed into a nation where only about 2% farm. Cross-country correspondence takes seconds, not days or weeks. War has evolved from armies battling in a field to the obliteration of cities and threats to the whole planet. A continental pall of smog replaces the scattered sooty chimneys. The once-bountiful cod are decimated. The country's population has grown 10 times, its international trade by millions of times. Corporate wealth and power eclipse those of many nations. The pace is fast and accelerating. With all this transformation, he might be astounded to find that a ghostly blowing off of dust from our governance structure reveals a very familiar outline. Even after Canadians' sporadic fascination with constitutional reform, governance has not kept up.

It's not that governance principles should change. Most basic is democratic accountability, implemented admirably by federalism. But as society metamorphoses, governance structures must adapt to maintain this principle and federalism’s validity.

Recent attention has turned to the plight of municipalities. They house most Canadians and deal with issues the Fathers of Confederation never imagined. But they are desperately underfunded, stuck with a property tax funding mechanism appropriate to rural 1867 while the national government wallows in surpluses. We must rearrange our income tax system to fund the level where problems can be tackled and political actions held accountable.

There's another level of governance that suffers still more: global. In Sir John A.'s day, when almost all social and commercial contact was local, we managed globally with a few treaties. Fifty-four years after his death and following two horrific world wars, humankind realized some form of global cooperation was needed, and created the United Nations. Now, 60 more years and quantum leaps of globalized change later, we struggle to govern a transformed and interwoven world with the same primitive structure.

Consider what governance would be like if we ran Canada the way we run the United Nations:

The national Government is unable to pass or enforce any laws. It is simply a discussion forum for provincially-appointed bureaucrats who have to agree on all undertakings. Ontario and Quebec can veto any decision. We have no national elections. The Canadian government has no taxing powers, relying on voluntary contributions from member-provinces.  Each province has its own army, and decides whether disputes are settled by courts or by attacks on neighbours.

Not a very effective way to govern a country. Nor a planet. And certainly
not an example of decision-making through democratic institutions accountable directly to the people.

That's not to say the United Nations is pointless. Sixty years ago, it
was an inspired first step and the world today is much better off for it. Disasters averted go unnoticed in the glare of publicity on those that happen. While headlines have blazed with 911, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda and numerous other calamities, the UN and its agencies have been quietly saving and improving millions of lives, effectively applying their ounce of prevention: immunization, nutrition programs, regulation of nuclear energy and of international air travel, workers' rights, literacy, cultural exchange and understanding. The UN's success in encouraging decolonization and self-determination is exemplified in East Timor and indicated by the huge growth in numbers of nations represented at the UN. Peacekeeping successes include El Salvador, Bosnia, Namibia, Mozambique, South Africa and Cambodia. The UN as a forum for discussion and mediation has undoubtedly forestalled numerous conflicts. The deterrence effect of the new International Criminal Court for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide may potentially save millions more lives.

But brought up to date, the UN could serve global citizens so much better.
In September there will be a Leaders' Summit to endorse a plan of action to implement the Millennium Development Goals and to consider changes at the UN. The proposed reforms represent progress. Security Council expansion would slightly dilute the old boys’ influence. Reform of the inept Human Rights Commission can only improve it. A big step forward would be endorsement of the principles of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ that place a focus on prevention of conflict and set conditions for international intervention when a country is unable or unwilling to protect its own people from large-scale loss of life.

But the undemocratic nature of the institution blocks major headway.  The narrow concerns of the rich, such as the threat of terrorism, will get far more attention than more deadly threats - poverty, disease and ecosystem degradation - faced by the majority of global citizens. Even proposals on terrorism sidestep root causes that might embarrass the big powers, focusing on unnecessary beefing up of the Security Council's counter-terrorism policing. The nuclear powers agonize over the threat of nuclear weapons spreading to non-nuclear states, blind to the hypocrisy and danger of their unmet nuclear disarmament obligations.

There's nothing in the reform proposals on increasing the role of civil society, little new on strengthening the General Assembly and the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to coordinate global economic and social development, and no progress toward a UN rapid reaction capability for more robust peacekeeping. The anachronistic veto is left untouched.

What can be done? Almost all the shortcomings result from the lack of
democracy for an institution faced with increasing numbers of issues
affecting all global citizens. Reform will remain piecemeal and
short-sighted until that basic structural flaw is repaired. A first step could be the formation of a consultative Parliamentary Assembly made up of representatives elected by national parliaments from among their own current members. It would be easy, inexpensive, avoid any Charter changes and create a valid democratic link between the UN and the world's citizens. It would bring people who speak for citizens rather than for "national interests". It would initially simply advise the General Assembly but in this role could inject fresh ideas and global thinking. It could nurture the concept of a common global community over the current trap of narrow national selfishness and exclusivity. And it could campaign to become a genuine parliament with members directly elected by citizens, with powers to legislate on selected global issues. This was the successful evolutionary path of the European Parliament, not without bumps, but representing remarkable progress in dispute resolution from the violence that racked that continent in the 20^th century. National sovereignty and regional culture are far healthier in peace than in war.

Sir John A. MacDonald saw the value of federalism. It has built a flourishing nation that honours diversity and gives citizens a voice – in local issues, provincial issues and national issues. Canada’s federalism has been a model for states like South Africa seeking a peaceful prosperous future that respects all citizens and cultures. In Canada, the system needs updating but the basic structure has worked extremely well. Would Sir John A.’s ghost immediately see that today's globalized village needs one more layer of democratic federalist government to deal with urgent global issues – war, poverty, the environment – that the United Nations in its present form cannot adequately manage? I bet he would.

Elizabeth Snell is a Communications Officer with the World Federalist Movement – Canada, a member-supported organization promoting the development of a global community based on the rule of law and democratically accountable international institutions.

You are cordially invited to attend the World Federalist Speaker Series on global issues, the third Thursday evening of each month at the Unitarian Church at 49th at Oak.  More info is available at http://www.worldfederalistscanada.org, by e-mailing [email protected], or phoning (604) 874-9982.