Some editorialists-- including the Globe and Mail-- are complaining that these demonstrators at these big trade conferences are a) wrong and b) undemocratic. Naomi Klein went on the CBC to set the record straight. Unfortunately, she stunk. So I'll have to do it.
There is some legitimacy to the point of view that demonstrators try to short-cut democracy. We have elections here. The people voted for Al Gore and Jean Chretien in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, and they got their wishes: George Bush Jr. and Jean Chretien. So what right do these demonstrators have to try to change the law by short-circuiting the democratic process and trying to get their way by bullying and shouting?
Naomi argued that, well, what these big corporations are planning is so awful, well, somebody just has to do something. Of course, that begs the question of who gets to decide when something is so awful that undemocratic means must be used to change the law. Like abortion.
What she should have pointed out is that while "nobody elected the demonstrators" nor did they elect the lobbyists for those multi-national corporations. And under the Bush administration, those lobbyists often actually write the law, and they certainly play a powerful role-- behind closed doors-- in influencing legislators on how to write the law.
One example. When Tom Delay ran for election to the U.S. Congress, he did not campaign thusly: if you vote for me, I will hold expensive breakfast meetings with highly paid lobbyists for the biggest corporations on the planet so they can tell me what they would like to see in the next round of legislation governing mergers and environmental regulations and minimum wages and so on, while you'd be lucky to smell a fart from my executive assistant. No sir. Mr. Delay tells everyone that he will represent their interests and do what's right, regardless of "the special interests" and lobbyists. He campaigns on his sensitivity to the needs and aspirations of the majority of his voters. Then he turns around and spends all of his time-- and I mean, all of his time-- with corporate hacks, and meaningless totemic symbols like the boy-scouts and baseball players.
Does anyone seriously believe that corporations donate millions of dollars to election campaigns for nothing? Because they are civic minded??? Because they really think that what is good for America is good for IBM?
Those lobbyists see to it that Mr. Delay receives big fat contributions come election time, so he can run big fat television ads that show what a sensitive, caring, unimpeachable character he is, and get re-elected, so he can continue to serve his corporate masters.
As long as the election laws in the U.S. continue to permit this entrenched system of corruption and distortion, demonstrators can certainly make a case for the fact that they are trying to restore a balance to this democracy. Since they can't get in those $300-a-plate fundraisers and since they can't offer Mr. Delay a weekend at an exclusive private Hawaiian resort, and since they can't send a couple of lawyers over to actually help Mr. Delay write the legislation-- they have no choice but to take their issues to the streets.
Why don't the leaders get smart: they should have initiated talks with Greenpeace and other issue-oriented groups-- who do legitimately represent various interests-- and brought them to the table. They should have invited them in. And they should have listened seriously to their concerns.
Ha ha ha! Had you going, didn't I? You thought for one minute that I seriously believed that George Bush Jr. might want to meet with people who care about the environment!
Ha ha ha!
April Fools!
