July 2, 2010 the Secretary General ofthe United Nations issued the followingpress release, "Following the resignation ofPrime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, theSecretary-General encourages all parties inNepal to intensify their efforts towards theformation of a consensus Government thatwould prioritize the implementation of allpeace process commitments. TheSecretary-General also urges speedy progresson the issue of the integration andrehabilitation of Maoist army personnel."
Are the consensus governments ofNunavut and the Northwest Territories amodel for a workable, federal, consensusgovernment? Why is the United Nationsendorsing consensus government as a solutionfor the power struggle among opposingpolitical parties in Nepal? Could it begovernment by consensus might be theonly way in which every citizen can have avoice in government?
In Canada, the Queen's representative,the Governor General, can cancel government.The present Governor General hasdone this, and each time it was not wellreceived by the citizens of Canada. Wedon't need our elected officials to beallowed to cop out of doing their jobs forany reason. Plus, elections are a farce if aperson, not elected by Canadians, canclose the government down. I think it'stime we changed this and got rid of theantiquated party system that keeps us fromenjoying good government.
Presently, we have government by caucus.Some words used to describe caucusare faction, political party and organization.The main political factions in Canadaare the Liberals and the Conservatives, andthose organizations are much the same asthe model we copied from England.However, their power is granted by theCrown through the powers of the office ofGovernor General. Do you like the ideathat a political appointee, who may or maynot know what they are doing, can shutdown your government? I certainly don'tappreciate this slapdash attitude towardour government and I bet you don't like iteither.
In other words, your vote really countsfor nothing if the Governor General canclose you down. You don't have anypower. Under the present system, it's amoney wasting farce for us to have elections,since the Prime Minister can have teawith the Governor General and shut downthe government. You can't fire them either,especially the Governor General, since thatoffice is by appointment only. You can geteven with the Prime Minister by electingsomeone else next time around, but unlessyou get control of your country, you canenjoy the same kind of betrayal from yournewly elected Prime Minister who can goto the same appointee and shut down yourgovernment. In other words, it's not yourgovernment folks. Under the present system,the government of Canada is a toyfor the Governor General and judging fromrecent behaviour from that office it's not atreasured toy either.
No one likes change and I'm no differentthan anyone else in that respect. Idon't want to uproot the whole shebangand toss it into the ocean. Really, I thinkour government can work, but we have toget control of it. Presently, we have electedofficials who lie, misuse public funds, andotherwise embarrass us and we can't firethem. Furthermore, we can't trust them orbelieve much of what they say. This is governmentbequeathed to us by the BritishEmpire. This is government designed tokeep control of the county in the hands ofa select few while giving lip service todemocracy.
The United States has a similar arrangement.Despite looking like it has bettergovernment, it doesn't and for similar reasons.Most of the control of the UnitedStates may be in the hands of a few peopleand the thirteen original states have adisproportionate influence over the entirecountry for that very reason.
Why mention the United States ofAmerica when talking about Canadian politics?We are close neighbours and we willcome under heavy scrutiny if we developconsensus government. Political factionshate to give up control. Expect heavyopposition from every Canadian andAmerican political party. Gangs do not willinglygive up control, but consensus maybe a way to extract power from them.