January 30, 2006 - No. 4

39th General Election

Significance of the Election Results

Interview with Sandra L. Smith, Leader,
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada*

TML: What in your opinion is the significance of the election results?

Sandra L. Smith: They are very significant from the point of view of the arrangements that the ruling class in Canada is making to restructure the state and put things in order in a manner that favours the interests of the monopolies engaged in global competition. The role they want Canada to play in that competition is very important.

The election was very hard fought. There was a lot at stake. If you look at the statements of the leaders of the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, based on how things developed within the situation, they were quite satisfied with the results.

Of course, the Conservatives were bordering on euphoria and some even hoped for a majority but they were quite satisfied that they achieved 10 of the 12 seats they were after in Quebec. They have MPs in nine of Canada's 10 provinces -- all except PEI. They took all the seats in Alberta, 17 in British Columbia, eight in Manitoba and 12 in Saskatchewan. This led Harper to declare that his party is now truly national and that Quebec and the west are represented in Ottawa. The fact that they received a tenuous minority -- 124 seats -- and have no representatives from Canada's largest cities -- Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver -- has not dampened their enthusiasm.

Harper's declaration that his government will stand for "change and accountability" has largely received a favourable reception and been "corroborated" by the pundits and media. Only for the workers and people across the country is this conception of change and accountability a threatening prospect. However, the electoral process and media make sure their concerns are not considered.

The Liberals went from 135 seats to 103 which was less of a loss than predicted. They also have representatives in nine of the provinces, all of them except Alberta. What is interesting, however, is the configuration of right-wing ministers who were not defeated, including Belinda Stronach, as well as the election of Michael Ignatieff. Their stands on border security, Canada's role abroad and the abrogation of rights in the name of security definitely tells us something about the kind of leadership race that is in the offing -- what kind of renewal the Liberal Party has in mind.

With the media presenting the Harper Conservatives as non-extremist and the Liberals as having a bunch of extremists as their representatives, it will be interesting to see how between them they reconfigure what they claim are Canadian values of tolerance, balance and so on.

As for the NDP, it also got what it wanted for purposes of presenting itself as the party which puts people first. It got Trinity-Spadina which was hard fought as well as industrial areas such as Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie. It is shut out of Quebec and, interestingly enough, Saskatchewan, besides Newfoundland, PEI and Alberta. But it has representatives in five provinces and one territory.

During the post-election commentary, one of the pundits made a very interesting statement. He said that the aim of the NDP now is to replace the Liberals as Canada's left of centre party and contend directly with the Conservatives as Canada's right of centre party. This is perhaps only a wannabe-scenario following the example of Tony Blair's New Labour party. Nonetheless, it holds nothing good for Canadian working people. Anyhow, the NDP went from 19 to 29 seats. This wasn't quite the 30-plus they were after to claim the balance of power but they got what they wanted.

The Bloc also got what was possible within the situation. They were not in a position to reverse the whole-scale intervention of the Canadian establishment to elect Conservatives in Quebec, but where they worked to get elected -- such as establishing a base in the Outaouais by getting Gatineau, and defeating Pierre Pettigrew in Papineau and Liza Frulla in Jeanne-Le Ber -- they did. The re-election of Liberal Transport Minister Jean Lapierre in Outremont was expected given all the efforts made by the alliance of the Liberals and NDP along with some of the Quebec old left.

So, the first point I think is important is for the workers and people of the country to really take stock of what was at stake in the election. The ruling class of Canada really went after these results. Even though one suspects that a Conservative majority would have been more to their liking, they achieved what they paid and organized for. As I said before, it was a very hard fought election.

One thing that should be kept very much in mind in considering the results of the election is that in Canada we do not have what they call free and fair elections. By no description of the word free or the word fair can they be called free and fair.

In fact, there was so much at stake that according to not a few commentators, even the RCMP, an institution of the state, intervened in the election. Repeated references were made which claim that it was as of the point the RCMP launched its income trust probe that the fortunes of the Liberals became irreversible. If it's the case that this was part of the strategy of specific interests behind the RCMP and the ruling circles to get rid of the Martin Liberals -- once it became clear that they could not distance themselves from the corruption which emerged under Jean Chrétien -- then it is an even greater scandal, in democratic terms, than the sponsorship scandal. But while all kinds of media pundits make the observation, they do not seem to take it very seriously.

Keeping in mind how elections are being held in all the countries where the Anglo-American imperialists have a stake and can play a role, such interference by the police arm of the state would not be unexpected but nonetheless it is a real indictment of the electoral system.

TML: What would you say were some of the major issues in the election?

SLS: The election was driven by two main preoccupations of the ruling circles in Canada. One was the determination to re-establish the equilibrium in the Parliament which was lost in the 1993 election when the old Conservative Party was decimated and the Bloc became the official opposition. At that time the Reform Party with also only a regional base dominated the west.

The old equilibrium and arrangement whereby the government consisted of a party with a national base in power and a party with a national base in opposition was lost. Since then, every attempt has been made to re-establish it which led to the corruption scandals.

In this same vein, Canadian federalism as it exists today is not an example of a modern federation. It is in a deep crisis from which it cannot extricate itself. Only those who have an interest in modern definitions and the recognition of rights can sort out the problem.

The federation is still based on 1867 power-sharing arrangements at a time the needs of nation-building were subordinate to the British empire to stop the annexation of its dominions north of the 49th parallel. Although these arrangements have been amended over the years, they no longer correspond with the needs of the big bourgeoisie to do as it pleases, let alone with the needs of the working class and people.

Furthermore, since the Canadian ruling class adopted the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. in 1989, the trend of integration is leading to the increasing annexation of Canada to the U.S. The original nation-building project at the time the bourgeoisie constituted itself as the nation was carried out within the framework of opposing annexation. If this is no longer the context, one has to question what nation-building project the ruling circles are talking about.

The second main preoccupation is the accommodation of the agenda coming out of the United States.

TML: Promises to renew federalism were raised repeatedly during the election with specific reference to Quebec. What is your view on this?

SLS: The manner in which the issue was raised shows that the ruling class is preparing another assault against the legal and democratic rights of the Quebec people in particular, but also against the people of the entire country. The refusal of the ruling class to renew the constitutional arrangements on a modern basis is leading it into deeper crisis and history keeps repeating itself in the form of scandals, corruption, etc.

The Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, in order to push their 19th century notion of king and country, ignore that the Quebec people want to enter into new relations as a sovereign nation. They continue to look at the Quebec nation as a subject people, as they do towards others in the rest of the country.

In fact, while the Canadian Constitution still rests on the notion of two founding peoples, today administrative accommodation has de facto violated its very basis. Now the notion is of 10 provinces, not of two founding nations. This is why Quebec has declared that the Constitution as it stands today is in contempt of itself. It is in fact a dead letter.

The notion of a province as applied to Quebec is not merely a reference to an administrative unit. It is also used to perpetuate the notion of a subject people. To suggest some separatist forces concocted this issue on a whim "to break up the country" is ridiculous. It is an historic problem which requires an historic, nation-building solution. Such a solution can only be provided on a creative, forward-looking basis by vesting the sovereign decision-making power in the people of not only Quebec but of the entire country. They should be informed about what is at stake so they can take informed, progressive stands.

The ruling class keeps the Quebec issue on the backburner and whenever the crisis facing the political system becomes acute, it brings the Quebec issue to a boil. It inflames passions and tries to create a backlash against Quebec in the rest of Canada as well as within Quebec itself. It divides people between so-called federalists and separatists. It creates illusions that the ruling circles are interested in renewing federalism in a manner which favours the people. This is not the case.

TML: During the election, we were told that Stephen Harper stands for "open federalism" and decentralization. In his victory speech, he said that Canadians had "voted for change" in electing a Conservative government. He highlighted various topics within this including accountability, "Canadian values," the law and order agenda and so on. But he also said: "Perhaps most importantly, we will begin the task of re-building federalism in the province of Quebec.... Our government will build a new and dynamic voice for federalism in Quebec."

What is all this talk about "open federalism" and decentralization versus a strong central state?

SLS: Both "open federalism" and decentralization have to do with the restructuring of the state that is taking place in countries around the world to comply with the dictate of the monopolies to compete effectively in a neo-liberal global market. In Canada, it is very linked to the demand for a United States of North American Monopolies to dominate the world. This gives rise to issues which juxtapose the modern need for a strong central state with demands for decentralization.

The Liberals wanted to confine the debate to this issue alone. The Conservatives even presented decentralization as a gift to the people of Quebec, as long as they forego the option to declare their sovereignty. This is obvious in Harper's repeated statement that the government should ignore the presence of the Bloc Québécois in Parliament and instead work with the federalist government in Quebec -- the Charest Liberals -- which is perfectly willing to cooperate.

This whole debate over centralization and decentralization has more to do with backroom manoeuvres to eliminate the responsibility of states toward the security and well-being of the people. This includes not only issues related to healthcare, education and the internal security of the people, but also issues related to war and peace and the external security of the people. In other words, this debate -- actually it is disinformation -- serves to drown the central issues of the need to provide social programs, how the society is developed and who controls our resources and the state treasury, as well as issues such as war and peace, security and the international rule of law.

These days any crime is presented under the veneer of high ideals so long as it favours making the monopolies more competitive in the global market. It shows that a profound discussion is required on how to modernize the nation-state so that it serves and provides for its people and contributes to the same internationally. Unless the nations of the world can meet the requirements of peace and their own social, economic, cultural and political development, the future is grim and dangerous.

TML: How did the federalist parties specifically approach the issue of Quebec and federalism?

SLS: They certainly didn't present a plan of action that was democratic or one that gives a vision on the basis of which to move forward. This was glaring during the French-language leaders' debate on January 10.

Liberal leader Paul Martin said that Quebeckers are isolated from power with the present set up where there are so many MPs from the Bloc. He said that the Bloc, being in the opposition, is impotent when it comes to ensuring that the government does not go to war in Iraq or refuses to participate in ballistic missile defence, for example. Only a government in power can do that, he said.

Leaving aside the fraudulent suggestion that the Martin Liberals aren't involved in Bush's "war on terror," let us deal with Martin's status quo solution for a "flexible federalism" with a "strong Quebec" and his statement that it is the "Quebec specificity" that is making Canada the country it is. Martin argued that Canadians must accept that the most important issue is that the competition is with foreign powers, namely India and China, and not inside the country. All Canadians have to pull together to make Canada great and competitive, he said. The problem with the Bloc is that "they always choose separatism" when the federal government wants to give something to Quebec, he said, giving the example of the amended Liberal-NDP budget.

"Flexible federalism," he explained, is when federal-provincial agreements can be reached like the accords on healthcare and childcare, through which Quebec and other provinces are said to receive large amounts of money. He also said this includes "asymmetric federalism," which his government had already practiced with the agreement on healthcare where there were clauses specific to Quebec. In other words, it is a scheme whereby the ability of the federal government to disperse money is used as a bargaining chip to advance a particular agenda, blackmail the people, sow confusion on how they can provide themselves with stability, etc. It has nothing to do with guaranteeing the rights of the people.

To Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe's argument that Quebec is already entitled to that money and does not want to have Ottawa interfering in its jurisdiction, Martin replied that Canada has a role as a central government. He said that any Prime Minister of Canada would have the responsibility to make Canada a strong central government. The example he gave was quite astounding given all the others he could have mentioned. He said that it is the Canadian government which tests drugs before they are allowed to be used in the country. He had nothing to say about the role of the central government in ensuring the well-being of all such as through equalization payments or about guaranteeing the rights of all at a Canadian standard of living no matter where they live in the country, their age, gender, wealth or ability. When it comes to the role of the central government of a federation, this is a crucial domestic issue, in addition to the country's role internationally to uphold international rule of law.

Martin said nothing to elucidate why he thinks the Quebec issue persists or to acknowledge how disastrous the Liberal policy on Quebec has proven to be, or why he thinks more of this policy will solve the problem of Quebec's place in Canada or preserve the unity of Canada.

The leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, is as incapable of speaking rationally. He said he recognizes that there is fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces, a reference to the large federal surpluses vis-à-vis a lack of funding of the provinces. Harper said he's the one who will sort it out. He repeated, directly addressing Duceppe, that there is "no use complaining about fiscal imbalance" -- just elect him and work with him and he will sort out the problem.

Harper also said he wants to give Quebec more powers, for example, to participate in certain international fora, which the Liberals did anyway, such as in the Francophonie or UNESCO where cultural issues are paramount. This policy which allegedly accommodates Quebec has nothing to do with the substantive issue of recognizing its right to self-determination.

Harper's main argument was that Quebeckers are isolated because Duceppe does not want to be in power in Ottawa, so he is not able to deliver. You have to be the governing party to deliver, he argued, adding that the Quebec representation in Ottawa is corrupted because it does not really represent federalism in Quebec. He said that he agrees with Duceppe that there should not be illegal federalist activities in Quebec but Ottawa and the Liberal provincial government have the right to promote federalism in Quebec. (This was a reference to the investigation on Option Canada for violations of the Quebec Election Act during the 1995 referendum.)

All of this begs the answer to the question of how Harper's conception of "open federalism" will renew federalism as opposed to facilitate Canada's annexation holus bolus to the United States. It totally obscures what interests the Conservatives serve and how the arrangements Harper advocates will facilitate those interests.

The media played a despicable role promoting this as an alternative to renew federalism while refusing to inform the public as to what this programs represents.

The leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, basically said that sovereignty is an old debate that diverts attention from the real issues, such as childcare. As far as Quebec is concerned, he said he would like to have a "project that creates the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec."

Layton also put forward a policy to appease Quebec which was just about as paternalistic and insulting one could get. He proposed a policy of reconciliation with Quebeckers on the basis of eliminating corruption and patronage and recognizing values that are dear to Quebeckers such as "generosity," "childcare," etc. In other words, Layton is satisfied with repeating a dogmatic rendering about the need for a strong central government to justify denying the right of the Quebec people to exercise their sovereignty.

The issue is that one can have a federation comprised of a free and equal union of its constituent parts with a strong and able central government which in no way tramples the rights of those constituent parts. Such a federation would use the power of the central government to use the strength and wealth of the whole to affirm the rights of the constituent parts. None of this is even considered.

In other words, to keep an ongoing clash between a strong central government and decentralization shows a perfidious hidden agenda of conflicting monopoly interests vying for control of the state treasury and resources of the nation for private gain.

TML: How did the Bloc respond to all of this?

SLS: There is little profound discussion in the ranks of the Bloc about these issues. The youth of Quebec are trying to remedy this problem.

During the debate, Duceppe said that he is guided only by the defence of the interests of Quebec and that within this he wants to foster friendship towards the Canadian people and Canada.

"But Quebec is different," he said, "Quebec is a nation and it needs its own state."

Duceppe said that he is opposed to politics which cut off your nose to spite your face, for instance to reject a policy that could be good for Quebec because it comes from the Liberals or the Conservatives. He said that he welcomed the fact that Martin acknowledged that Quebec is a nation (Martin was forced to make that statement when put on the spot by Duceppe) and also that Martin and Harper now recognize fiscal imbalance, especially Harper who made a commitment to solve it. But he pointed out that Harper still needs to come out with something concrete on the issue of fiscal imbalance.

In his closing remarks at the debate, Duceppe said that he is aware that the federalist parties, in some circumstances, are capable of doing very bad things but he is ready to cooperate if something they propose is positive for Quebec. He is on guard to defend the interests of Quebec, he said.

TML: What is your view on this whole discourse?

SLS: That particular debate and the entire discourse on Quebec showed that the way these federalist parties are positioning themselves to deal with Quebec will further exacerbate the crisis of federalism. Ignoring the need for a modern Constitution which as its first principle enshrines the right of Quebec to self-determination, the hereditary rights of the First Nations and the citizenship rights of all Canadians and instead impose law and order agendas and incite passions is a disaster in the making. All notions of privileges or declaring who and what are legitimate on the basis of agreement with what are called Canadian values must be eliminated. It is not an academic question.

To carry on blaming Quebec sovereigntists for "breaking up the country" is diversionary and a fraudulent, crisis-ridden stand.

TML: Would you say that the presence of the Bloc is positive?

SLS: So long as the Canadian ruling class refuses to renew federalism on the basis of a democratic plan and vision, the people have to find a way to deprive those with political power of the power they wield to do as they please. The Bloc presence in Parliament has been an obstacle to negating the Quebec nation. It is not the Bloc which is isolating Quebec.

The arrangement upon which the Canadian federation was founded has become obsolete and requires renewal. The Bloc presence in Ottawa is a response to the crisis. Its presence forcefully puts on the agenda the need to deal with the obstacle imposed by the old arrangements of the 19th century empire-builders. The defenders of the status quo who refuse any and all discussion on this issue since the failure of the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords are now forced to claim they have a plan to fix it, since as long as the Quebec issue is not settled, no political party will be able to claim to "govern Canada from sea to sea."

TML: How does the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada propose to deal with all of this?

SLS: The MLPC has already given the call nationwide for the working class to constitute itself as the nation and vest sovereignty in the people. This is a program for the renewal of the political process, renewal of the federation and a change in the direction of the economy so that the government cannot use its power to pay the rich but instead must guarantee rights. Our party works with the people to create the means by which they can exercise the power to decide their future. During the election we called on the people to vote for candidates that defend that position. We are organizing the youth to inform themselves on these matters and prepare to be leaders of a different future which favours the people.

Furthermore, it is essential to combat the disinformation about the role of Quebec in the Canadian federation and about the strengths and weaknesses of the federation itself. What problems does it face? How can these problems be sorted out? We are tackling these issues.

The attempts to divide and disinform the people are greater than ever. The aim is to prevent the working class and people of the entire country from putting their own interests on the agenda on an organized basis in opposition to the neo-liberal, anti-social offensive. We are also tackling this issue.

We are doing a lot of theoretical work on matters related to the political system, rights and nation-building.

The capitalist notion of a nation-state is not only myopic as it is connected directly with the narrow interests of a small ruling elite, but it also belongs to a bygone era. As capital and production become more and more concentrated and globalized, the bourgeoisie considers the very notion of a nation as outmoded. This is seen in agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and all the security arrangements since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. It includes not just the "smart borders" but also the integration of the armed forces and so on, as well as all the anti-labour legislation.

Through the anti-social offensive and the phony controversy between a strong central state and decentralization, those in power are destroying the social and national fabric. In fact, while they sell out the human and natural resources of the nation, they actually use the nation-state to facilitate and channel this plunder.

Workers must appreciate that the concept of the nation is not outmoded. It is precisely on the basis of constituting themselves as the nation -- that is, engaging in nation-building on the basis of an economy and domestic and foreign policies geared to guarantee the rights of all -- that they can reverse the annexationist trend, the destruction of the social fabric and the dangers of fascism and war. It is only by acting in this manner that the working class can defend its own interests at this time. The interests of the working class are synonymous with those of the nation and it is up to the workers to ensure that the working class plays its independent and leading role in society.

TML: Let's talk further about the Harper agenda. His victory speech was titled "Canadians Choose Change and Accountability." What is your initial impression of what he said in that speech?

SLS: Besides other things, Harper said: "To those around the world who have followed the campaign, our message is the same -- the result tonight signals a change of government, not a change of country. We will stay the course of balanced budgets, low inflation, debt repayment, and economic stability. We will continue to help defend our values and democratic ideals around the globe. As so courageously demonstrated by those young Canadian soldiers who are serving, and who have sacrificed, in Afghanistan. While always charting a path in the best interests of Canada, we will seek to work cooperatively with our friends and allies, and constructively with all nations of the world."

With this Harper asserts that whatever is addressed to Canadians is a signal to the U.S., friends and allies; it is the same message. All talk of values and democratic ideals is directed towards geopolitical considerations and staying the course of the neo-liberal agenda. "Defence" of these values and agenda will be by means of militarism and aggression, the exemplar being Afghanistan, under the aegis of U.S. or other military or economic blocs.

The means of carrying out these policies will be by "charting a path in the best interests of Canada... work[ing] cooperatively with our friends and allies, and constructively with all nations of the world." Note how he uses the mysterious language of dividing the world into friends and enemies and the geopolitical positioning of the Canadian state -- the "best interests of Canada."

Harper is asserting the claims of raison d'état -- reason of state -- of a narrow, self-serving minority based on the expansion of executive power and the bureaucracy. Since Harper's message is the "same" within Canada and internationally, no covering up and obscuring the actual situation at home and abroad can prevent the obvious, and honest, inference that the "best interests of Canada" are neither the same as the many different interests of individual Canadians and their collectives nor of the general interests of the society. Similarly, the many conflicting interests worldwide cannot be reconciled with the assertion of the narrow, factional interests of a minority of Canadians nor with their arbitrary division of the world into "friends and allies" -- those who cooperate, those who will accept their "constructive" intentions. It is in this assertion of "sameness of message" that the mysteries of state reveal themselves and become much less mysterious.

At the conclusion of an election that results in a minority government, how can the views of the electorate, with all their conflicting interests, passions, their desire for change, for a renewed society which cares for the well-being of its members, for peace and justice, etc. be reconciled with the claims of a mandate by a small party faction? How will the pressing questions of war and peace, a secure livelihood, sovereignty and annexation, environmental crisis, etc. be worked out? Who will decide and how will they decide on these and other important questions? By what mechanisms and arrangements? How is it that a tiny party faction in a minority government, or a combination of tiny factions, can decide to look at the world in terms of their own narrow interests, while the issue is one of intervening in world affairs (and domestic affairs for that matter) on the basis of principled positions, not from the standpoint of friends and enemies?

We can infer that Harper will carry out his agenda by virtue of the royal prerogative, and herein lies the answer to all mysteries. However, there are many who may not find this a virtue, nor find it in line with their values and conscience. And it is here that lies the answer to providing a solution to the problem of how the royal prerogative is used against the interests of the peoples at home and abroad.

TML: What is the "change" and what is the "accountability" in the Harper agenda?

SLS: To find out what Harper means by change and accountability, Canadians will have to study how he is intervening in the situation. He has already said his first act in government will be the Federal Accountability Act. From what we have seen thus far of Harper's views on accountability, it does not include taking up social responsibility. It's the same notion as that of Paul Martin. Harper will likely introduce new rules and regulations and what is called oversight procedures, but none of this will deal with why the corruption or conflicts of interest occur or even properly identify what constitutes corruption or conflicts of interest. Already under Martin some 600 accountants were hired in several ministries and the result is increased harassment of ordinary Canadians and rank and file workers. How decisions are taken, why and by whom and modern procedures consistent with the times does not enter into the picture.

Similarly, Harper's notion of change, which the establishment and media are presently using to disinform the public, requires serious attention to establish its ideological underpinnings.

In his victory speech, Harper said: "Despite the divisions and discord of an election, the ability to peacefully change and renew our nation's leadership remains one of our country's great strengths."

The notion of peaceful change is not at all discussed -- for instance, how the ruling class is going about achieving in other countries the "peaceful change" which he says we have in Canada. There is nothing peaceful about what is taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti or what they threaten to do to Iran, Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries if the governments and people there don't submit to their definition of democracy and a raison d'état which falls in line with the interests of the Anglo-American imperialists.

TML: You said how decisions are taken, why and by whom remains hidden. This seems to deal with the permanent state of exception which has been declared where we see a clash between rule of law and the committing of all kinds of crimes by making them "legal." Is this the case?

SLS: Yes, but what is significant is the self-serving arguments to justify what cannot be justified.

The main ideologues of the bourgeoisie in Canada -- be they Liberal such as the Axworthy brothers and Michael Ignatieff, be they Conservative such as Harper's man Tom Flanagan, or others from the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Council of Chief Executives -- are all arguing in the same vein as the discourse taking place in the U.S. and Britain. All of them argue on the basis of reactionary premises.

The essence of the arguments put forward in Canada, such as "responsibility to protect" or "human security," oppose the right of nations to self-determination, just as their arguments about security trample civil rights.

An understanding of what is taking place in the United States can guide us in our study. There a dangerous notion is being put forward that a new equilibrium can be established by creating a balance between continuity and change.

A claim is made by the U.S. administration, for example, that these are exceptional times marked by perpetual war, and that by reason of state the President must wield executive powers in order to preserve American liberties, law and order, the American state. The claim is specifically that the Constitution (being the continuity with the past) vests the President with these powers under its article 2 section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into service by country." And secondly, these special discretionary powers derive from Congress' "Authorization to use force" issued following 9/11 which it is claimed gives legal sanction to proscribe "checks and balances" established by the Constitution in "normal times."

According to the argument, balance and equilibrium will result from uniting under Bush, who is given dictatorial powers because of claims of threats at home and abroad. On this basis, the claim is made that torture, assassination, spying, kidnapping, secret courts, secret imprisonment, regime change, destruction of peoples, threats of aggression and wars of occupation and even the use of nuclear weapons, etc. are all carried out legally, under rule of law, and are therefore necessary in restoring balance in the world.

Many voices including from the establishment have been raised in opposition, and the Bush administration has been called illegal, actively destroying American democracy and the Constitution, controlling and intimidating through arbitrariness and violence. Al Gore recently quoted the dean of the Yale Law School on the "previously unrecognized powers": "If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution." Bush with the huge concentration of power in the executive, has personally assumed the status of an absolute monarch, and based on this position claims that all abuse of power can be carried out with impunity.

The views of critics, focusing on all these arbitrarily assumed powers, the lack of accountability, secrecy, etc., taken together offer a description of the royal prerogative. It is similar to the absolutist King of England James I, 1616: "If there falls out a question of my prerogative or mystery of state deal not with it, till you consult with the king or his council, or both; for they are transcendent matters."

And the arguments of Locke and Montesquieu on the prerogative might find resonance with the critics' views of Bush arguments on surveillance and crusades against purported "internal and foreign enemies": Locke linked the prerogative to what he termed federative powers in opposition to the "design of foreign princes" and insurrections within a country, claiming those who participate in rebellion are in the same position as those in line with foreign powers. Often examples from American history are given in comparison with Bush, for instance the 1798 Alien-Sedition Acts, the World War I anti-subversive and sedition laws and the 1919 Palmer Raids and "red scare," the Japanese-Americans incarceration in concentration camps, McCarthyism, Cointelpro, etc. Examples of the dictatorial powers of empire-building, militarism, fascism, etc. out of the past are also often compared to the activities of the Bush administration.

In this manner, a certain impression can be created that history moves in cycles, through extremes, and then, as Gore suggested, "the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret." At the same time, Gore and all other such critics are in agreement with Bush about "threats" to the U.S. and the need for the President to have expanded discretionary powers, including the use of secret courts and judges, which cannot be given a precise legal basis, but should be pursued under the "rule of law" and within constitutional "checks and balances." Some of the leading critics are merely demanding that Bush go through the Congress to acquire the powers so that they are conferred "legally." And yet Gore fears, "There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself." The venerable exercise of the "separation of powers," the constitutionally sanctioned procedures of government must be brought into balance with the changing times.

The old arrangements, procedures and processes of the status quo are being thrown to the wind, while all principles and achievements are under radical assault. The notions of equilibrium through cycles of history and through the balance between continuity and change are alike, and as such are dangerous illusions: they cover-up the actual disequilibrium that is destroying the already existing social fabric while negating the actual interests of the people of all countries who are in dire need of achieving a new equilibrium. Such a thing cannot and will not be achieved by the contending factions within the ruling class because their interests lie with reaction. Only the working class and people whose interests lie with progress can manage such a thing.

In this regard, these old notions of equilibrium and balance are used to cover up the actual historical trends and situation and the need for change. They cover up the need to activate the social and political forces which can bring it about. By confounding continuity and change and what's absolute and what's transitional, these notions serve the reason of state of the usurpers.

The reason of state of the holders of the royal prerogative is in actuality the basis of the unreason of state, of irrationalism. Irrationalism keeps afloat archaic notions and feelings of perseveration, the compulsive repetition of responses to experiences in situations where they are no longer appropriate. Examples of this are the treatment of Quebec, of the peoples of the First Nations, of the youth as a law and order problem, of minority rights, of the peoples of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean as white man's burden.

This atmosphere of irrationalism opposes reasoning through and arguing out the modern definitions that can point to a way out of the disequilibrium by recognizing that all persons are born to society, and by virtue of this there must be the recognition of their claims on society, and the guarantee by government to secure the conditions by which these claims can be satisfied. Without modern definitions, old notions will hold sway with passions and interests inflamed, finding no relief by which they can be sorted out and harmonized.

In opposition to this state of disequilibrium, it should be recognized that equilibrium is inseparable from motion. Motion is inseparable from matter. All things and phenomena are matter in motion. Without recognizing the basis of change, development and motion and opening a path for society's progress on that basis, the crisis will be exacerbated with dire consequences for the peoples both at home and abroad.

This is the framework within which the MLPC sets its program to open society's path to progress.

* The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) is registered with Elections Canada as the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca