Two news items this week offer an interesting commentary on Western political economy. One gives me great hope and the other … well … it just makes me want to spit. But when you view them together, it suggests a reason why liberal democracy can never fulfill its promise so long as it embraces classical market economics. Fortunately, it also suggests a solution to the problem. Here are the two stories:
First Story :
Yesterday, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada granted an appeal in the case of Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9. Adil Charkaoui was one of six people detained under the Immigration Act’s provisions for Security Certificates in the case of suspected terrorism. Here is a summary of the decision from the SCC’s press release:
The procedure, under Division 9 of Part 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and hence of no force or effect. This declaration is suspended for one year from the date of this judgment. However, as of the date of this judgment, s. 84(2) is struck, foreign nationals are read into s. 83, and the words “until a determination is made under subsection 80(1)” are struck from s. 83(2).
The full decision is also available online.
This sends an unequivocal message to the world that, so long as we regard ourselves as constitutionally bound by the values reflected in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there will be no Guantanamo Bays on Canadian soil. No matter what the circumstances, there is no justification for the abrogation of fundamental human rights.
Second Story:
Yesterday also marked a trilateral “secret” meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Check out its home page which claims that it seeks to “increase security and enhance prosperity” in North America yet displays only the American flag on its web site. Facing criticism that it has been functioning without consulting its constituency, the member countries invited hand–picked members of the business community to offer input. Interesting concept of constituency. I was most disturbed by the calls from U.S. business for Canada to liberalize its restrictions on more than 4,000 substances which Canada treats as environmentally hazardous & currently does not allow to cross the border. Condoleezza Rice reminded us Canucks that we wouldn’t enjoy all the security we presently enjoy if it weren’t for the U.S. so no doubt Stockwell Day will relent & trade away our environment for a moth–eaten security blanket.
Reading the two stories together:
The two stories point to an assumption that many North Americans make about liberal democracy — that it neatly aligns itself with liberal markets because it is about freedom of choice. Canada allows its citizens to exercise freedom of choice at the polls. So why can’t we primitives have the decency to allow our citizens to do the same thing in our commercial lives? The U.S. wants Canada to liberalize trade because (so say the U.S. market ideologues) it is grounded upon the greatest good one could ever hope for — individual freedom of choice.
The problem with a liberal democracy is that it cannot legitimately conform to a market version of free choice. Both the U.S. & Canada have constitutional democracies. Our choices are constrained by immutable values which we have taken the time to name and have taken the care to nurture. Sometimes the will of the people is wrong. Sometimes the will of the people devolves into rage and then encourages behaviour like detention without trial or trial without disclosure of incriminating evidence. Why does it surprise us that a society which demands unfettered trade should happen also to maintain a gulag — the ultimate expression of an unfettered political will? To avoid the sort of devolution we witness to the south, we look to more enduring principles which survive the rise and fall of particular governments.
Perhaps it is time to think of liberal markets in the same terms. Unrestricted choice sometimes breeds a tyranny all its own. Perhaps it is time to enshrine enduring values in a constitutional document whose span overarches the latest trends and whims of enterprise.
Do we really believe that WalMart is the ultimate expression of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?
Do we really believe that the purchases we make at WalMart express our essential freedom?
Related posts:
Sat, Feb 24, 2007
Half-filtered