Please have a
look at a very short correspondence with Mr. Joe Clark after my presence to him
on May 2nd my
Open
letter to Mr. Bernard Landry - Quebec's PM (antidotum for modern politics - the
palestinized people do not vote) at: http://www.spop.addr.com/LAUNDRY.htm
on my web site: http://www.spop.addr.com
I was asking Mr. Joe Clark
for his permission to publicize our short correspondence on May 28th in my
e-mail letter to him and it seems that he is agreeing to this idea. Today, not answering or saying “no comments”
is the most politically correct form to admit something by our poor and
exploited political gladiators used to control our modern society.
I hope that after his party convention he will start to tell the truth
about our dirty politics. We need more
of Chrétien’s style monologs among old politicians who can try in this easy way
to clean their conscious before dying or create legacy at the very end!!!
Let’s help them to do it,
now!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This letter below was
e-mailed to my yahoo address by Mr. Joe Clark on May 5th, 2003:
Dear Slawomir,
Thank you for your
e-mail. I appreciate your taking the
time to write to me and send me a copy of your open letter to Mr. Landry.
Thank you for sharing your
concerns with me on the current state of the political landscape in Canada.
Given the nature of your
comments, I wanted to bring to your attention the democratic reform package
that was adopted by the PC Party at our recent National General Meeting in
Edmonton. This innovative set of
proposals reflects a careful and creative partnership between Parliament and
all Canadians that gives each of us the opportunity to have a direct influence
on public policy.
As a Member of Parliament
and a party leader, I have seen first hand the steady erosion of confidence in
the institutions designed to promote and protect the public interest. Our society has undergone some fundamental
changes over the past number of years, but our political institutions have not
kept pace with that change. In
introducing and debating these proposals the PC Party has passed the most
comprehensive package of reforms designed to re-empower Parliament and its
Members and reconnect government with the citizens they are there to serve.
If you have not already done
so, I welcome you to read the report as adopted on our website www.pcparty.ca . The debate amongst the delegates to our convention was intense and
in the end not all of the proposals were adopted, but that is the democratic
system in action. I believe that
Canadians will find much to support in these policies for improving the
accountability of government and I am looking forward to discussing these
issues with all Canadians.
Again, thank you for taking
the time to share your views with me.
Sincerely,
Joe Clark
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- -
These letters below was sent
to Mr. Joe Clark on May 8th, 2003 and so far I had not received his answer:
Dear Joe,
It was a pleasure to read your response, which demonstrates that you respect
the all members of our society and do care about their disappointments with the
present system. I admire your trust in the possibility of reforming the
political system, but I cannot bring myself to share it. In my opinion reform
was possible before but is now too late. Until the first half of the last
century the political structure housing developing democracies was ironclad. We
cannot reuse elements from the previous structure to create similarly credible
political structures. Why? Because these iron elements are already deeply
corroded. The corruption has reached the deep structure of the system so that
even the best-intentioned repair will be undermined. Let’s assume that your
party wins the next elections and fully implements your Edmonton 2002 “Democratic
Reforms” – this scaffolding will collapse from within later. Why? Ask the street-smart producers of cheap
mattresses why they advertise their products with big labels saying: “Only new materials were
used”.
The goal of reforming the old structure makes your “reforms designed to
re-empower Parliament and its Members and reconnect government with the
citizens they are there to serve” resemble the work of an excellent car
mechanic restoring an antique car. Ultimately it will look great and we can
admire his work, but the restored car is only for looking at, not for everyday
driving.
Joe, I find a worrying lack of respect for the masses’ wisdom in your party
statement “The precipitous decline in voter turnout during recent federal
elections (75.3%, 69.6%, 67.0% and 61.2% in 1988. 1993, 1997 and 2000
respectively) is one indicator of growing discontent among Canadians with
respect to the political process. An IRPP survey in 2000 found that voters
continue to feel that they do not have much say over what government does and
that their elected representatives are not in touch with the people”. You patronize those same people by saying: “This malaise would be
partly corrected by increased use of government-sponsored referenda as well by
allowing citizens themselves to initiate referenda on matters enjoying broad
public support. While majority opinion, no matter how overwhelming, is not
infallible, direct appeal to voters is nevertheless our ultimate source of
political legitimacy and the only way to settle authoritatively some
controversial issues, where consensus is beyond the reach of the competitive
partisan process. And we believe that Canadian voters are capable of making
informed, thoughtful choices.” Why is this patronizing? Because the consistent "decline in voter
turnout" is not a sign of “discontent” but of wholesale rejection
of a political system in which a professional élite maintains itself by
manipulating the masses. The attempt to base politics on the “thoughtful choices” of the populace will work
only on the assumption that the political class is in touch with the beliefs
and desires of the citizenry. But that contradicts the manifest fact that a
growing number of citizens are alienated from political life and from
politicians. Nobody spearheaded a movement to quit voting, it just happened –
and giving an explanation seems to have become rather a taboo topic. The media
tends to explain diminished participation in the voting circus by citing
spurious motives such as bad weather, tiredness and boredom. The technique of
judging phenomena embarrassing to the rulers or politicians as a sign of “malaise” (literally, of disease)
affecting the body politic has been employed since feudal times but still works
in the age (as your party says in the Edmonton statement) of “the empowerment
of citizens through the Internet”. But I think that the lack of participation
in the process is a significant fact and itself results from “informed,
thoughtful choices” made by the citizens of Canada, not from vague, irrational
feelings of “malaise”.
But how can you connect with these disaffected voters? Given your interests and aspirations, it
seems that your most pressing responsibility in this arena is to expose and
combat those who control the media and bring politicians under their influence.
For example, I would like to see your energy, integrity, and dedication burning
in the cause of reversing globalization. On a global scale, that movement only
reinforces the centrality of a particular superpower and its associates and
(reciprocally) the peripheral status of the rest of the world. That process is
repeated methodically in each country, even in Canada. Your Edmonton
declaration does not deal with the problem. If you want to reach all Canadians,
all their problems must be addressed in some way. Your prescription for
improving global political systems by introducing extra regulations in Canada
was presented too late, and it would take too long to see results.
You are aware, of course, that the global community is a reality in some sense.
The people of the world, despite differences in religious affiliation or
nationality, manifest a humanitarian response toward obvious, clear-cut
injustice. This response comes from a feeling of shared humanity. In the
Internet age the individual reasserts his or her uniqueness through the very
assignment of rights and status as a human being to other similarly unique
individuals. This is obviously in contrast to the globalization Mulroney’s
renegade government introduced to Canada, which is now fully supported by
Chrétien's puppets. It seems that their first allegiance is to people like
Bronfman and Asper rather than to humanity in general. The Winnipeg trial
initiated by Mr. Harris perfectly confirms it. Let’s remember the furious
efforts of the Chrétien government to bury the trial of Chrétien’s financial
mentor from the beginning. Bronfman’s theft of tax money (over 2 billion) was
arranged by party members, but the Chrétien clowns defended it even more diligently.
The superior court judges had a chance to help with this case, but finally they
were reminded of who nominated them and allowed them to reach their positions.
As you know, both Mulroney and Chrétien come from poor families. Only after
long training as servile butlers were they finally allowed to “rule”
this country, albeit supervised by the representatives of entrenched money and
influence. Can such characters as “The Junior Businessman” (Martin) and “The Faithful Servant” (Copps) change that? We had
a reasonable sounding Reform Party that tried to introduce more honest people
into our politics, but they were shut down very quickly.
And here we have a real problem – two stubborn older (over fifty) men who,
instead of deferring to their opponent’s views, believe strongly that only
their proposals can save the world. Our correspondence thus far can be
summarized as: Two guys insisting on reading only their own texts with
attention, with the hidden goal of gaining a new supporter. Why not try to cooperate
instead?
With this goal I propose a quiet meeting in the near future, just to discuss
what would allow for a true exchange of views. In fact, I would prefer to do so
in correspondence. However, I must also take into account that many
professional politicians would be very careful when putting views in writing
(for obvious reasons!), whereas my objective is a free and direct exchange of
personal views, as that has a chance to be more unique and profound.
Sincerely,
Slawomir Poplawski
P.S. If you (reader) feel provoked for some
comments, please e-mail your reflections to me at: slavekpop@yahoo.com,
Thanks