Nearly all the problems we face as a society today are problems of abundance.

Over the millennia, as a species we have become very skilled at dealing with scarcity.  Our ancestors often lived on the edge of survival.  They were one long winter, or one disease outbreak, or one failed harvest away from devastation.

And we have responded to these challenges by producing more.  We grow more crops, we mine more coal, we extract more oil, we build more cars.  But very soon our society will have to answer the question: how much is enough?

Unemployment is seen as an under-supply of jobs.  But an equally valid way of looking at it is as an over-supply of labour.  A society with unemployed members is a society that, as a whole, feels that it is using sufficient labour, and has no need for the efforts of some of its members.

Obesity, heart disease, diabetes and some cancers are also problems of abundance. A hunter gatherer society expends nearly every calorie it ingests in search of the next one.  But now we’ve figured out how to mass-produce calories.   Many of the health threats facing the developed and developing world are not due to lack of food, but to an over-abundance sugars, alcohol and tobacco.

Pollution, likewise is a by product of the increased ability of our society to make stuff.  Everything that we dig out of the ground, or make in our factories, has to one day find its way to the landfill or other resting place.

So how much is enough?  Is it possible for a society to say “we have enough, we do not need to increase production?”  Is it possible for an individual to say “I have enough, I do not need to acquire more?”  Can a society see its over-supply of labour as an opportunity, not a problem?

I don’t have the answers to these questions yet.

The title of today’s question may be a bit of a mouthful, perhaps that reflects my lack of answers on this one.

The lead headline on BBC news today was Mahmoud Abbas presenting Palestine’s bid for statehood to the U.N.

The ongoing Israeli-Palestine conflict is obviously one of the defining long term geo-political issues of this age.  In an attempt to understand today’s U.N. address, I spent some time reading up on the last few decades of the history of Palestine.  If we are to understand today Abbas’ call to recognize a state with pre-1967 borders, we need to understand the Six Day War of 1967.  To understand the events that led to war we need to understand the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and so on.

I can’t claim that I’ve even begun to understand the complexities of the religious, ethnic and political tensions in the area, but I do realize one thing.  Many people feel that they or their ancestors have been wronged, and that justice requires redress for these past wrongs.  In this particular case, the PLO wants the return of territory lost during the Six Day War.

If we accepted as a principal that territory seized by one country from another should be returned, then how universally could we apply this?  And for how long?  Should Karelia be returned to Finland from Russia?  Should Libya be returned to Turkey?  Or possibly to Italy?  Should Quebec be returned to France?  Should Ontario be returned to the Iroquois?  Or maybe to the Algonquin?

Ultimately, when faced with such questions we realise that huge swathes of the Earth have been fought over, won, lost, occupied, colonialised, and traded.  And there are probably few people groups that cannot lay claim to some past injustice.

So should we try to redress these past wrongs?  Or should we abandon all striving for justice?  Or is there another way, perhaps that acknowledges what has happened in the past and at the same time works hopefully towards a better future for all?

image courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideon/

Another tricky one today.  One time when I entered Canada I was asked whether I had ‘ever been affiliated with an organization that used violence to achieve political goals.’

I was very tempted to say ‘yes, I’m a British Citizen.’

I doubt that an immigration desk is the right place to have a detailed philosophical discussion about if and when it is acceptable to use violence to further political aims.  A border agent probably isn’t that interested in debating Just War theory, or pacifism, or the culpability of the citizen for the actions of the state, or Weber’s idea’s of the Monopoly on Violence.

However, this blog is exactly the right place to have that discussion.

So, when is it justifiable for one group to kill people for political reasons?  Karl van Clausewitz said that “War is the continuation of policy by other means”, and then spent 10 (surprisingly readable) volumes discussing the best ways of conducting war.  But he only considered the actions of nation-states.  In today’s world we have national armies, but also private security outfits, militant groups, and indeed lone individuals, all of whom have both political goals and the ability and motivation to harm others in order to achieve them.

Even categorizing these groups presents difficulties.  In Iraq, anti-government forces tend to be known as ‘insurgents.’  In Libya, anti-government forces are referred to as ‘rebels.’  Members of the African National Congress, such as Nelson Mandela, were referred to variously as revolutionaries, militants, freedom fighters and terrorists.  Even the language that we use carries a heavy weight of implied judgement, making it hard to objectively consider when and where violence may be justifiable.

So, is it acceptable for one nation to invade another to acquire resources, or perhaps in pre-emptive defence?  Is it OK to bomb or shoot a corrupt dictator?  If so, must the killer be part of an organized national army, or a distinct political group, or does the rightness of the cause permit a lone actor to take matters into their own hands?  What about the use of violence against citizens, or ideological groups, or criminals?

And if we can answer these questions, can we then mold them into a cohesive theory that applies both to the actions of the state but also to the responsibilities of the individual?

Today I will go to work, and some of the tax I pay on my income will be directed towards the Canadian armed forces.  As a direct result of my labors, bombs have been built, guns have been loaded, and ultimately, on the other side of the world, people I’ve never met have been killed.

How do we respond to this?  Is it possible, as a society, to agree on the place and limitations of political aggression?   And can we do so in a way that acknowledges and cherishes the fundamental value of each human life?

I was listening in the car today to a CBC phone-in discussing the election.  One caller made the following point, which I found very telling:

“I took the CBC Political compass, and came up as Green. I like the Green platform, I agree with the Green party’s policies.  But I could never vote for them because it I can’t take the risk of voting for a third party and letting the Conservatives win.”

This represents to me one of the big misunderstandings of our political process.   We need to remind ourselves that we do not vote for parties, we vote for people. We are not electing a prime minister, or a party, but a LOCAL representative.

Driving through the city I see lots of boards with peoples names on it. So I know that Patrick Brown is ‘blue’, Colin Wilson is ‘red’, Myrna Clark  is ‘orange’ and so on, and I find myself wondering whether a person’s character can really be summed up by a an HTML colour code.   Is Patrick Brown more interesting than #00008B Dark Blue? Surely Colin’s family knows that he has more depth of character than #FF0000 Red?

We elect people, not parties. As I’ve said before, and will say again, what matters is the competence and integrity of the individual. I don’t know how I’ll vote yet on may 2nd, but I do know that I’ll make my decision based on my best assessment of the character and abilities of the candidates, not the color of their signs. Anything less is to ignore the humanity of both the candidates and the people they represent.

The first, and so far only, election flyer that I’ve received is from Colin Wilson.  It highlights Liberal values, such as “investing in programs that continue to reduce the crime rate, rather than building new prisons”, which I found a welcome contrast to Brown’s ‘tough on crime‘ stance.  It also included an invitation to “drop by the office to have a chat with Collin”, so that’s exactly what I did.

My impression?  So far, top marks for Colin and his team.  Despite having to prepare for a debate this evening, Colin graciously took the time to meet me and answer some of my questions.   As I’ve said repeatedly, competence and integrity are two values that are critical for any political candidate.  Colin mentioned to me both his 12 years of experience managing project teams in the private sector and his 10 years working in government.   He can certainly reasonably claim the experience and competence to be an effective MP.

Colin also has a desire to bring high-tech and green jobs to Barrie.  The city certainly needs a concerted effort in this area, and it will be interesting to see what definitive proposals are developed to help the city continue it’s transition from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy.

As the Barrie Examiner pointed out last week, running an election campaign can be an expensive  process, but so far it seems that it’s a challenge that Colin and his team are tackling with gusto.

If you want a chance to hear and meet the candidates, the next debate is on the 14th at Barrie City Hall.  Democracy only works if the electorate engages actively, so come and let your voice be heard.

As I try to comment on the unfolding election campaign, I’m faced with the challenge that I don’t actually have a clue what messages the party leaders want me to hear.  This is probably my fault, because I have intentionally crafted a lifestyle that is as free as from corporate and political communication.  I rarely watch television, I switch radio channels as soon as a commercial comes on,  I use email spam filtering, and I do this for a reason.    I don’t want my mental environment to be dominated by messages that tell me that I’m nothing more than a consumer of goods and services, that my value is directly tied to the amount that I consume, and that the only valuable decisions I can make in life are picking between competing brands.

The flip side of this is that at the moment, I have no idea what Harper, or Ignatieff, or Layton, want me to hear.  I’ve so far not seen or heard a political ad, or received a campaign phone call.

In general, I’m happy about this.  I’m not inspired by the same-old approach to electioneering; the lawn signs, the commercials, the robo-dialers and  the tired game of tightly controlled political ‘messages.  I’m not inspired by the so-called ‘debates’ that are more about posturing, scoring points, reassuring the base and spreading fear and doubt about the opposition than about a genuine, honest exchange of ideas.

There seem to be very few politicians that are willing to engage in a real discussion with the electorate; although occasionally I witness a counter-example.  A few weeks ago on the popular internet discussion site Reddit.com Anthony Weiner, answered questions in the “Ask Me Anything” section.   Instead of getting a staffer to post pre-packaged soundbites, he actually engaged with the argumentative, sometimes rowdy commentators.   I think this is a hopeful development, and one I’d like to see more of.   Candidates are asking to be allowed to represent the people, and if they choose to present monologues rather than engage in dialogue with the electorate, then they are not worth our support.

So, the lawn signs are coming out.  I went for a bike ride round town today and saw quite a few Patrick Brown signs, and a few NDP ones. So, at least some people are working on this campaign.

Unfortunately, the NDP signs include a link to this site, http://www.barriendp.ca/, which is currently ‘under construction’.

As I’ve mentioned before, I consider  competence and integrity to be the most important values in politics.  While it can be hard to judge the integrity of candidates during a campaign, unless they make it easy for you by making clearly untrue statements, the typical election campaign does provide a good opportunity to observe the competence of a political team.

If my company was launching a major new product, and knew that it had a six week window in which to grab market share, but the website for the product was still ‘under construction’ four days after the product launch, then heads would be rolling.  In general, people aren’t that interested in politics for much of the time, but the time during a campaign is a golden opportunity to broadcast your party’s message, to present your candidates, and to stimulate the conversation.  Currently the NDP in Barrie is failing to do so.  I’m disappointed.

So I received a flyer through the door today from Patrick Brown, making him the first candidate to get in contact with me.  Unfortunately, it was clearly printed before the election was called and makes no mention of  it at all.

Instead, it is a commercial for Bill C-21. It doesn’t really say very much about it, but is full of words like ‘Corporate Thugs’, ‘Parasitic Crimes’  and ‘Tough new Laws’.  Clearly Brown wants to portray himself as ‘tough’.

(At this point I have to concede that yes, Patrick Brown is tough.  He’s one of the very few people in the city that can beat me in a 5k run…)

However, I’m not that taken by this ‘tough on crime’ posturing.  It’s worth remembering that Corrections Canada is not ‘Punishments Canada’, and has as it’s mission not just incarceration but ‘actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens’.

The cost of incarcerating a Federal male prisoner is around  $87,665 per prisoner/per year.  To just promote a policy of increased punishments for those that get caught does not address the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining these prisons, nor the costs to the country of removing people from the workforce.  More importantly,  as reflected in Corrections Canada’s mission statement, the goal of the justice system is not simply retribution, but ultimately restoration – of individuals, of offenders, and of society.*

This is the second communique I’ve received from Brown highlighting his ‘tough on crime’ stance.  Every time I receive one I feel less inclined to vote for him.

* I can’t recommend a better book about restorative justice than “Returning to the Teachings“, by Rupert Ross.

CBC has made available a ‘Vote Compass‘ that purports to help you figure out which leader and party most accurately represents your political position.  While I’m not sure how much value this tool has, I was very pleased to see that in the section about the party leaders, I was asked both how trustworthy and competent I thought each leader was.  I’m glad that this is being talked about, because it reflects my fundamental political philosophy – discussion about policies is useless without considering the competence and integrity of politicians.

On the matter of competence, an election campaign actually gives voters a chance to judge this first hand.  Running a campaign is not identical to running a country, but many of the same skills are needed.  To run a successful campaign, you have to be able to get a team of people to work together.  You have to agree on a message and promote it through all available channels.  You have to create and execute a strategy, you have to juggle competing priorities, you have to work with a budget, and you have to do all these things while others are actively competing with you.

So, how are the local candidates doing so far?  I was disappointed yesterday to see how hard it was even to find out who our local candidates were, let alone any useful information about them.  Are we doing any better today?

• The liberal candidate has a brief message commenting on the upcoming election, although this was posted four days ago.
• The NDP still doesn’t seem to have anything to say to the people of Barrie yet.
• The Green party is asking for money.
• The conservatives haven’t updated their website in several days.   It’s not obvious looking at it that there’s a campaign in progress.

So, overall I’m disappointed.  It’s been obvious for a week that an election was coming.  I would have thought that any competent candidate would have had a personal message to the voter front and center on their website the moment parliament dissolved.  Now is the chance to demonstrate your competence, folks!  Update your blog, tell me about yourself, why I should vote for you, where you stand, what your experience is, and what you’ll be doing during this campaign!

So, once again a federal election approaches.  I’m going to take this opportunity to observe and comment on the campaign over the following weeks.

Rather than just regurgitate the talking heads on parliament hill, I want to approach this from a more local perspective.  With all the talk about Harper, Ignatieff and Layton, it’s easy to forget that we don’t actually elect a Prime Minister.  All we do is elect a local Member of Parliament to represent our interests.  The fact that they are affiliated with a political party is incidental, rather than essential, to our political system.  It’s worth remembering that MPs can, and do, cross party lines and vote against their party on occasion.  So I’m going to focus initially on my local candidates. I live in the riding of Barrie, and here’s what I’ve been able to gather so far about the local candidates.

• PoliticallyBarrie.ca seems to be a useful agegration of information about Barrie politics.
• Our current MP is Patrick Brown.
• The candidate for the Barrie Liberals is Colin Wilson.
• The green party candidate is Erich-Jacoby Hawkins
• I’m not sure who the NDP candidate is – here is the relevant page on the  NDP site.

I’ll add to this list as I gather more information.

As I’ve argued before, I’m convinced that the two most important qualities needed in any elected representative are competence and integrity.   I’ll be keeping these two character traits in mind as I observe this campaign.