This snippet was published in 1997. Feel free to substitute MAI with FTAA, TILMA, SPP, or other acronym of your choosing.
But the fundamental problem remains one of false populism in a growing crowd of false populist provincial leaders--a trend which is not balanced by any solid social leadership in Ottawa. The federal government resembles that of Louis St. Laurent's second term. A low-key, feel-good atmosphere distracts us from a general passivity before corporatist interests. A more accurate description might be complicity with corporatist interests. There appears to be little opportunity for the development of a positive nationalism which could address the social situation.
A small example: there is a slow rumble of concern outside of the political parties and the main media about an ongoing international negotiation on investment rules, or rather the removal of them. It is called the Multilateral Agreement of Investment (MAI). No one with power or a stable platform from which to communicate will engage the citizenry in a debate on the subject. When pushed, they may utter reassuring sounds.
The last decade has been filled with events of this sort; each of them representing another managerial step towards profound international restructuring. When you read the MAI texts—which as yet have no validity—it is clear that they represent an important move towards asserting the primacy of corporations or interest-based structures over citizen-based structures. And yet there is virtual silence fro our elected representatives. They are, after all the chosen leaders of the citizen-based structures.
Positive nationalism would involve the initiation of an open debate by those in positions of responsibility. Instead, the experienced citizen senses that we are now passively waiting for the initiation of a public-relations campaign designed to instruct us on the immense and inevitable good which will be done by our ceding another slice of our democratic legitimacy.
Of course, it won't be put that way. Instead there will be a chorus of received wisdom in the economic-administrative manner. This is now classic rhetoric, delivered with the assurance of religious texts.
You might ask if I am sure that the MAI will be so bad. Frankly, I have no idea. But why do I have no idea? Where is the debate which would enable me to make up my mind in a dignified adult manner? Where are our elected representatives? Why do they see their role to be that of the protectors of the various interests against the citizens who elected them? In private they express a weariness with the citizens' naivete. They, the leaders, know. Know what? The truth, of course, But how can they get the public, who understand so little, to go along with them? With this self-righteous burden on their shoulders, they dutifully do endless private polling and hire serial management consultants to advise them on how to get the public to go along with the truth they already possess.
My point is that whether or not those with power are right is actually of secondary consideration. The primary consideration is that in a democracy legitimacy lies with the citizenry. That's what makes a democracy superior to other forms of social organization. And the process which leads to important decisions is not simply supposed to include the citizen. It is supposed to use the intelligence of the society--which lies within the legitimacy of the citizen--in order to minimize the chances of making major mistakes. That is the primary characteristic of a democracy. That use of the citizenry's intelligence is what differentiates a democracy from the various sorts of dictatorships, whether direct and brutal or sophisticated and managerial in the corporatist mode.
What is most surprising about our elites is that they are unable to identify the effects of their actions. They don't see how their upcoming successful manipulations to put in place the MAI will simply increase the effect of their putting in place of the trade deals. That is, they will weaken the confidence of the citizen in the system and therefore favour the rise of negative nationalism over the positive. Perhaps most fascinating is the low level of confidence they have in the democratic process. I'm not referring to the short-term excitement of occasional elections. In effect, they identify more with the managerial idea of controlling power than the democratic idea of examining power and using it constructively. The attitudes of our elected representatives before these major questions resemble, if anything, those of senior courtiers in the eighteenth century.
— Reflections of a Siamese Twin by John Ralston Saul
But the fundamental problem remains one of false populism in a growing crowd of false populist provincial leaders--a trend which is not balanced by any solid social leadership in Ottawa. The federal government resembles that of Louis St. Laurent's second term. A low-key, feel-good atmosphere distracts us from a general passivity before corporatist interests. A more accurate description might be complicity with corporatist interests. There appears to be little opportunity for the development of a positive nationalism which could address the social situation.
A small example: there is a slow rumble of concern outside of the political parties and the main media about an ongoing international negotiation on investment rules, or rather the removal of them. It is called the Multilateral Agreement of Investment (MAI). No one with power or a stable platform from which to communicate will engage the citizenry in a debate on the subject. When pushed, they may utter reassuring sounds.
The last decade has been filled with events of this sort; each of them representing another managerial step towards profound international restructuring. When you read the MAI texts—which as yet have no validity—it is clear that they represent an important move towards asserting the primacy of corporations or interest-based structures over citizen-based structures. And yet there is virtual silence fro our elected representatives. They are, after all the chosen leaders of the citizen-based structures.
Positive nationalism would involve the initiation of an open debate by those in positions of responsibility. Instead, the experienced citizen senses that we are now passively waiting for the initiation of a public-relations campaign designed to instruct us on the immense and inevitable good which will be done by our ceding another slice of our democratic legitimacy.
Of course, it won't be put that way. Instead there will be a chorus of received wisdom in the economic-administrative manner. This is now classic rhetoric, delivered with the assurance of religious texts.
You might ask if I am sure that the MAI will be so bad. Frankly, I have no idea. But why do I have no idea? Where is the debate which would enable me to make up my mind in a dignified adult manner? Where are our elected representatives? Why do they see their role to be that of the protectors of the various interests against the citizens who elected them? In private they express a weariness with the citizens' naivete. They, the leaders, know. Know what? The truth, of course, But how can they get the public, who understand so little, to go along with them? With this self-righteous burden on their shoulders, they dutifully do endless private polling and hire serial management consultants to advise them on how to get the public to go along with the truth they already possess.
My point is that whether or not those with power are right is actually of secondary consideration. The primary consideration is that in a democracy legitimacy lies with the citizenry. That's what makes a democracy superior to other forms of social organization. And the process which leads to important decisions is not simply supposed to include the citizen. It is supposed to use the intelligence of the society--which lies within the legitimacy of the citizen--in order to minimize the chances of making major mistakes. That is the primary characteristic of a democracy. That use of the citizenry's intelligence is what differentiates a democracy from the various sorts of dictatorships, whether direct and brutal or sophisticated and managerial in the corporatist mode.
What is most surprising about our elites is that they are unable to identify the effects of their actions. They don't see how their upcoming successful manipulations to put in place the MAI will simply increase the effect of their putting in place of the trade deals. That is, they will weaken the confidence of the citizen in the system and therefore favour the rise of negative nationalism over the positive. Perhaps most fascinating is the low level of confidence they have in the democratic process. I'm not referring to the short-term excitement of occasional elections. In effect, they identify more with the managerial idea of controlling power than the democratic idea of examining power and using it constructively. The attitudes of our elected representatives before these major questions resemble, if anything, those of senior courtiers in the eighteenth century.
— Reflections of a Siamese Twin by John Ralston Saul
