I propose that Canada initiate the formation of a new international body. Membership would be defined by the following factors: 1) a population of less than thirty-five million, 2) a per capita GNI (Gross National Income) over US$20,000, and 3) a record of fully functioning democracy for a minimum of fifty years. Switzerland, which qualifies, would be omitted by dint of its special neutrality and banking interests. The following countries would be invited: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. In addition, I would suggest that Greenland and the Faroe Islands, both entities semi-autonomous from Denmark, be invited to participate as full members. Canada has a special interest in close co-operation with Greenland.
There is good reason to bring these nations together under a roof. They are all economically advanced countries, with long democratic experience, which must constantly move in the shadow of the big powers. They have a combined population of more than 120,000,000. If they become accustomed to mutual consultation and combined action, they can, together, have a clout equivalent to the “big boys”.
Democracies with a population under 35,000,000 operate quite differently from larger democracies, despite the formal resemblance in structure. Our issues and problems are much closer to those of the Netherlands or Australia than they are to Britain or the United States. Countries like the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany are shaped by long histories of wielding power on a large scale. Formal democracy, in such places, rides like a floating cork on an ocean of invisible influences, tangled power structures and murky social forces. Reform and innovation in such countries is far more difficult than in democracies that work on a manageable scale. That is why a country like the United States may have problems that everyone recognizes, the solutions for which are generally agreed upon, and yet make little progress solving them over decades.
A democracy as small as Iceland, with a population smaller than that of Mississauga (a suburb of Toronto), is perfectly capable of providing its citizens with all the collective services they need. Perhaps it cannot rustle up a space program or deploy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, but it can educate its children, care for its aged, heal its sick and administer justice with greater efficiency than a superpower. Small democracies have accessible politicians, and efficient internal communications. Issues can be understood and debated by the public. They have the versatility to experiment… and to reverse the course of experiments if they turn out wrong. Representative democracy works very well for a country up to a population of six or seven million. After that, difficulties begin to appear. Bureaucracies become more impenetrable and arbitrary, individuals have greater difficulty dealing with the State, the left hand starts to lose track of what the right hand is doing. At thirty-five million, these inefficiencies start to take a serious toll. Canada is at the upper limit of the advantages of scale in a representative democracy. It’s not surprising that Norway, a country of five million, has displaced us in one well-known “best place to live” list.
No matter how much Canadians would like to strut in the councils of the mighty, we will never be one of them. We have the choice of being ignored, or of toadying to one of the big powers. If we pursue our current habits, we will always be chasing after them, like a ten year old tagging along with his older brother’s gang. Our true interests lie with the small democracies. It is there that we should be cultivating our influence and building mutual support. The people who administer Norway, Finland, New Zealand, and the Netherlands do many things extremely well. They deserve our attention, and, often, imitation. For our part, we have some tricks we can teach them. Instead, we fix our eyes hypnotically on the big powers, and we ignore our peers. Or worse. We recently found ourselves in a spiteful and idiotic dispute with Denmark, a country with which we have critical common interests and should be seeking harmony.
An official body would bring the common interests of small advanced democracies into focus. These are fundamentally different from our interests in small poor countries, or in bigger poor countries, or in bigger rich countries, or in non-democratic countries, or in the inexperienced new democracies. Each of these groups has its own proper approach. But there is a particular group in which we should be concentrating our attention, and I think my proposal identifies it.
However, it would not do if such an association became another excuse for pompous ceremony, caviar banquets and junkets. It should exemplify, in its operation, the strengths of small-scale democracy. Modern telecommunications and information technology should be employed to their fullest. We should not tolerate grotesque parodies of G‑7 summits and the squandering and corruption of the United Nations.
0 Comments.