Come on in, seems we have a theme today. European vs. First Nation culture. If it is starting to sound a bit anti-European, well. It is. Sorry. Doesn't change the facts.
Ok, anyone else following this? There's a whole lot going on, so I thought I might expound on what I think of it. So let me ramble.
At the root of this is the perceived conflict of interest between Chief Lonechild's criminal charge and his position on accountability and reform. So let us all go over the sides here, the arguments for and against. Now the folks arguing for his stepping down are saying that because of this perceived conflict, and the chance of his stances being weakened, Lonechild needs to step down. Behind the scenes are such things as a rejection of more funds for the Senate which Lonechild is seen as responsible for, and Lonechild's reform measures which pushes out the old guard of corrupt officials who lined their own pockets. But those background arguments should be kept at arms length as speculative and inflammatory. On the flip side of this is the argument that Lonechild is not the first person to make this same mistake and the other were not required to step down. I mean hell, the former Premier of Alberta made drunk driving his usual form of leaving the Parliamentary buildings.
Now me, I'm watching everything that's going on and I have a much more fundamental question: Why the fuck are we using European institutions and philosophies to exercise our right to self-determination as a Nation? Seriously. Why? Sure, at one point it was the only way for our rights to be recognized but I think we've moved beyond that and perhaps it is time we started to take a serious look at the way in which we govern and find new ways to apply the old traditions.
Because here is what I think of Lonechild's charges, and subsequent admission to an addiction to alcohol. First off, he has admitted it. Sure it required an outside influence to force the admission and ownership of the problem but guess what folks? That was the traditional way it was done. The medicine wo/man would go to the afflicted and facilitate a public admission of the wrong doing and start to build a means through which to correct the issue. Which he is doing. We do not attack someone who has a problem. We fix it. Ousting Lonechild will not fix the issue. It will merely continue the abuses we've learned. These are the original ways and they still work.
FUCK! How can people not see something so simple?
2 comments:
1) Lonechild doesn't need to step down. His constituents/supporters will cast their lot when it's time to elect their leader.
2) Whether you like it or not, whether it's right or not, if you want to have a nation that is self-governed, you have to run it in such a way that the rest of the world will recognise it as self-governed, and governed responsibly. Muammar Qaddafi has been running a government for thirty years based on some pretty traditional ways of governance. No, I'm not likening Lonechild to Qaddafi (Lonechild has way better fashion sense). What I *am* saying is that to be recognised as a democracy, a body has to act like a democracy in the manner that the constituents *of* that democracy understand. Also-too, *no* political system is immune to abuse and corruption, no matter *how* old or traditional it is, or how well it used to work.
Our own system of "European institutions and philosophy" worked *just fine*, after all, without women or people of colour being able to vote.
How many people even know about the old ways of electing leaders?
I disagree that our ideas of democracy have worked. I don't think we've ever had a true democracy, nor do I think we've ever understood equality on the level that it used to exist.
As far as going back to traditional governments that are recognized, there is far too much ground here to cover. Suffice it to say, I find the argument that the government some how has to be recognized by the rest of the world to be false. First off a nation, especially one that is to focus on its people first, has the right to form any government it feels does this best. It's part of the sovereign right of a nation. Two, there are several, now independant, First Nations reserves that have gone back to less rigid forms of democracy, even adopting full consensus rules, that are in the manner of the old ways.
My point is, First Nations in Canada have moved beyond the point of having to support forms of government that do not serve our people. We should feel free to reorganize and adopt more traditional ways that incorporate new technologies and ideas to better encompass a government that is focused on the ideals of the philosophies and traditions of their cultural heritage.
Post a Comment