Wonderful to read this well written little summary , especially in these crazy world times. Uplifting! As I comment, I see all the little trolls parsing out your sentences ( like any media ) but I for one loved this , and appreciated the spirit of this reminder NOW.
Canada is not perfect , but a welcome priority is to focus on how much our love of country matters. All the rest can be sorted- we have a system of governance that allows for this.
For those wondering "how did this happen", I'd suggest they read John Ibbitson's book, "Duel, Diefenbaker, Pearson and The Making of Modern Canada". It's as much a history book as it is a story about two prime ministers.
The founding fathers of Canada like the founding fathers of America avoided dealing with the greatest hindrance to democracy and to equality-they never set limits on the amount of private wealth one could accumulate. Wealth is power. Concentrated private wealth is the greatest problem we have.
The founding fathers of Canada like the founding fathers of America were men of disproportionate wealth. And no doubt they believed they earned and deserved every penny of it and wanted more even though they had more than enough.
But this makes their visions all the more remarkable. They could empathize and see themselves lifted up, not by putting others down but by lifting others up too.
Actually, it means that they (like we are today) were stuck in the earning and deserving-meriting myths reflected in our reward systems. The myths of earning-deserving-meriting leave us not just unjust in distribution of the nation's wealth but delusional and destructive. In hindsight I should have left that paragraph off this site because it's a huge topic. What I hoped John Ralston Saul would address was my first paragraph-my first comment. The founding fathers of Canada like the founding fathers of America avoided dealing with the greatest hindrance to democracy and to equality-they never set limits on the amount of private wealth one could accumulate. Wealth is power. Concentrated private wealth is the greatest problem we have.
Which means you are too stupid to see that "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."
And it was no accident that John A MacDonald chose a complementary path and one different from that of the American founding fathers.
MacDonald
With much praise for the US Constitution and the wonderful achievements of the Founding Fathers, Canada’s John A. Macdonald in 1864 nevertheless concluded the following about the United States President:
“By the election of the President by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a particular party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of re-election”.
“During his first term of office, he is employed in taking steps to secure his own re-election, and for his party a continuance of power”.
“In the United States … the President, during his term of office, is in a great measure a despot, a one-man power, with the command of the naval and military forces—with an immense amount of patronage as head of the Executive, and with the veto power as a branch of the legislature, perfectly uncontrolled by responsible advisers, his cabinet being departmental officers merely, whom he is not obliged by the Constitution to consult with, unless he chooses to do so.”
MacDonald’s reference to “departmental officers” is important and contrasts with the British / Canadian system’s permanent public service whose mandate is to serve the government of the day but is also a permanent system dedicated to providing inter-government continuity of facts and information, even if such disagree with the current government’s position!
In addition, not even MacDonald could have imagined the destruction and rot that would ultimately be caused by a partisan US Supreme Court.
The claim that Canada is “the oldest continuous democratic federation in the world” is false.
The United States is an older federation, and Switzerland’s 1848 federal constitution also makes that slogan highly contestable even before getting into definitional arguments about “continuous” and “democratic.”
Thank you for your comment and for quoting my statement: “Canada is the oldest continuous democratic federation in the world.”
Two key words: “continuous” and “democratic”.
The U.S. was broken apart by a long and incredibly destructive civil war. Some 3 million citizen soldiers fought each other in horendous campaigns., usually thought of as harbingers of World War 1.
An interesting parallel because WW1 was a European civil war with horrendous losses. Countries like Canada and Australia were outsiders, but came in to support one side or the other.
Back to the U.S. civil war. Casualties? 750,000 soldiers; 50 thousand civilians.
The country was violently torn apart.
It is not a “continuous” democracy from its founding.
A seperate argument which I will only evoke here: Can a nation-state dependent on slavery - industrialized slavery! - be considered a democracy? To be clear, all analyses show that the North, all free of slavery, was nevertheless dependent on its economic role.
For example, the vast majority of U.S. exports until well into the second half of the 19th Century were dependent on slave labour.
Great also that you brought up the Swiss Federation. A great accomplishment. It was put in place on September 12th, 1848, six months after Canada.
Thank you for the clarification and for emphasizing the terms continuous and democratic. The distinction matters.
Responsible government in 1848 is widely recognized as a key milestone in Canada’s democratic development. Canada as a federal state, however, begins with Confederation in 1867.
By comparison, the United States’ federal constitution dates to 1789 and Switzerland’s to 1848. When discussing federations as constitutional structures, those are typically the relevant starting points.
“Continuity” and democratic standards also introduce interpretation.
Despite the rupture of the Civil War, most constitutional histories treat the United States as a continuous state whose constitution and federal institutions persisted.
Likewise, judged by modern standards of universal suffrage and equal political rights, most 19th-century states — including Canada and Switzerland — would fall short for significant portions of their early histories.
For that reason, describing Canada as “the oldest continuous democratic federation” reflects particular definitional choices rather than a straightforward matter of constitutional chronology.
The broader point — that responsible government in 1848 was foundational to Canada’s democratic development — remains well established.
The confederate states were a separate political entity that had to be readmitted back into the union. One could argue that the United States ceased to exist for that 4-year period.
First past the post is a flaw in the method of choosing representation. The NWC has become the favorite tool of right wing provincial governments.
The fact that these flaws exist does not negate the fact that we are a democracy.
We don't have a party that is in the grip of a man who would stop at nothing to try to establish himself as a permanent head of state, or who tried to steal an election he lost.
We don't have a paramilitary force terrorizing communities seen as centres of political opposition.
We don't have a governing party consistently ignoring court orders.
We don't have a government that sends its military to war without any of the necessary approval by the legislature.
Thank you for that, Mr. Saul, your book will be well worth reading for us all to better understand our own country. It is important to every Canadian that we view our own political and social heritage with proud and open eyes. We have subjected ourselves to the myths from the country to the south for too long and have neglected our own story.
Wonderful to read this well written little summary , especially in these crazy world times. Uplifting! As I comment, I see all the little trolls parsing out your sentences ( like any media ) but I for one loved this , and appreciated the spirit of this reminder NOW.
Canada is not perfect , but a welcome priority is to focus on how much our love of country matters. All the rest can be sorted- we have a system of governance that allows for this.
Thank you !
For those wondering "how did this happen", I'd suggest they read John Ibbitson's book, "Duel, Diefenbaker, Pearson and The Making of Modern Canada". It's as much a history book as it is a story about two prime ministers.
The founding fathers of Canada like the founding fathers of America avoided dealing with the greatest hindrance to democracy and to equality-they never set limits on the amount of private wealth one could accumulate. Wealth is power. Concentrated private wealth is the greatest problem we have.
The founding fathers of Canada like the founding fathers of America were men of disproportionate wealth. And no doubt they believed they earned and deserved every penny of it and wanted more even though they had more than enough.
But this makes their visions all the more remarkable. They could empathize and see themselves lifted up, not by putting others down but by lifting others up too.
Actually, it means that they (like we are today) were stuck in the earning and deserving-meriting myths reflected in our reward systems. The myths of earning-deserving-meriting leave us not just unjust in distribution of the nation's wealth but delusional and destructive. In hindsight I should have left that paragraph off this site because it's a huge topic. What I hoped John Ralston Saul would address was my first paragraph-my first comment. The founding fathers of Canada like the founding fathers of America avoided dealing with the greatest hindrance to democracy and to equality-they never set limits on the amount of private wealth one could accumulate. Wealth is power. Concentrated private wealth is the greatest problem we have.
It is not a problem. There are different opinions on how it should be managed for best advantage.
Which means you are too stupid to see that "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."
Ah yes, horse and sparrow economics, cause that's worked out.
Excellent as usual, even more excellent than your usual excellence. You should publish this in french in Québec, John.
And it was no accident that John A MacDonald chose a complementary path and one different from that of the American founding fathers.
MacDonald
With much praise for the US Constitution and the wonderful achievements of the Founding Fathers, Canada’s John A. Macdonald in 1864 nevertheless concluded the following about the United States President:
“By the election of the President by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a particular party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of re-election”.
“During his first term of office, he is employed in taking steps to secure his own re-election, and for his party a continuance of power”.
“In the United States … the President, during his term of office, is in a great measure a despot, a one-man power, with the command of the naval and military forces—with an immense amount of patronage as head of the Executive, and with the veto power as a branch of the legislature, perfectly uncontrolled by responsible advisers, his cabinet being departmental officers merely, whom he is not obliged by the Constitution to consult with, unless he chooses to do so.”
MacDonald’s reference to “departmental officers” is important and contrasts with the British / Canadian system’s permanent public service whose mandate is to serve the government of the day but is also a permanent system dedicated to providing inter-government continuity of facts and information, even if such disagree with the current government’s position!
In addition, not even MacDonald could have imagined the destruction and rot that would ultimately be caused by a partisan US Supreme Court.
The claim that Canada is “the oldest continuous democratic federation in the world” is false.
The United States is an older federation, and Switzerland’s 1848 federal constitution also makes that slogan highly contestable even before getting into definitional arguments about “continuous” and “democratic.”
Thank you for your comment and for quoting my statement: “Canada is the oldest continuous democratic federation in the world.”
Two key words: “continuous” and “democratic”.
The U.S. was broken apart by a long and incredibly destructive civil war. Some 3 million citizen soldiers fought each other in horendous campaigns., usually thought of as harbingers of World War 1.
An interesting parallel because WW1 was a European civil war with horrendous losses. Countries like Canada and Australia were outsiders, but came in to support one side or the other.
Back to the U.S. civil war. Casualties? 750,000 soldiers; 50 thousand civilians.
The country was violently torn apart.
It is not a “continuous” democracy from its founding.
A seperate argument which I will only evoke here: Can a nation-state dependent on slavery - industrialized slavery! - be considered a democracy? To be clear, all analyses show that the North, all free of slavery, was nevertheless dependent on its economic role.
For example, the vast majority of U.S. exports until well into the second half of the 19th Century were dependent on slave labour.
Great also that you brought up the Swiss Federation. A great accomplishment. It was put in place on September 12th, 1848, six months after Canada.
Thank you for the clarification and for emphasizing the terms continuous and democratic. The distinction matters.
Responsible government in 1848 is widely recognized as a key milestone in Canada’s democratic development. Canada as a federal state, however, begins with Confederation in 1867.
By comparison, the United States’ federal constitution dates to 1789 and Switzerland’s to 1848. When discussing federations as constitutional structures, those are typically the relevant starting points.
“Continuity” and democratic standards also introduce interpretation.
Despite the rupture of the Civil War, most constitutional histories treat the United States as a continuous state whose constitution and federal institutions persisted.
Likewise, judged by modern standards of universal suffrage and equal political rights, most 19th-century states — including Canada and Switzerland — would fall short for significant portions of their early histories.
For that reason, describing Canada as “the oldest continuous democratic federation” reflects particular definitional choices rather than a straightforward matter of constitutional chronology.
The broader point — that responsible government in 1848 was foundational to Canada’s democratic development — remains well established.
The confederate states were a separate political entity that had to be readmitted back into the union. One could argue that the United States ceased to exist for that 4-year period.
They had a civil war which interrupted their democracy. They are on the brink of another one.
First past the post is NOT democracy. Nor, for that matter is the "notwithstanding clause"
You can't have democracy when the rich can, literally, buy it. The top(sic) 10% owns some 53% of Canada's "wealth".
Democracy is a "would-be-nice-to-have" right now.
The Oldest Continuous D̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶t̶i̶c̶ Federation
First past the post is a flaw in the method of choosing representation. The NWC has become the favorite tool of right wing provincial governments.
The fact that these flaws exist does not negate the fact that we are a democracy.
We don't have a party that is in the grip of a man who would stop at nothing to try to establish himself as a permanent head of state, or who tried to steal an election he lost.
We don't have a paramilitary force terrorizing communities seen as centres of political opposition.
We don't have a governing party consistently ignoring court orders.
We don't have a government that sends its military to war without any of the necessary approval by the legislature.
We don’t, nonetheless, have a democracy.
Temper!
I confessy stupidity, however. It's why I depend so much on fact and so little on assertions.
Thank you for that, Mr. Saul, your book will be well worth reading for us all to better understand our own country. It is important to every Canadian that we view our own political and social heritage with proud and open eyes. We have subjected ourselves to the myths from the country to the south for too long and have neglected our own story.
All I can say is to echo Sue Fleck - this is indeed a wonderful reminder of what us essence Canada. Thank you for this JRS.