CANADIAN FIREARMS COMMUNITY PARTY TIME AN IRREVERENT GUIDE TO POLITICAL ACTIVISM By David A. Tomlinson This paper was written as a political primer for those who see problems with Canada's democracy but are not certain what to do about them or how to correct our defective political systems. 1995: Canada is a democratic disaster area. Less than 3 per cent of our voters belong to any political party. That tiny (under 3 per cent!), self-selected, and very unrepresentative minority has absolute power to choose every name on every ballot in every election--federal and provincial--and absolute power to set every policy of every political party. That is too much power in too few hands. If you want to help correct that dangerous imbalance, you need to understand our system of selecting and electing politicians works. This paper is addressed to the Canadian firearms community, a group with members from every walk of life. As a group, you are above average in income, education and sense of responsibility. You are precisely the type of people who should be selecting the candidates for election and setting the policies of parties. As we enter the 21st century, 20th century ideas about everything getting bigger and bigger, more and more uniform are breaking down. Businesses are being forced to break up into smaller "profit centres," and sell off profit centres that do not fit into their structure. The same forces are driving governments to "privatize" (sell off) their commercial businesses--which form no required part of government, and do not fit within it. The hard choice is: Get rid of it or keep losing money through it. Decision-making powers are moving to lower levels, both in business and in government. Communication now moves in every direction instead of just orders coming downward and reports going upward. Information is available to anyone with computer and modem access. Computer communication is revolutionizing the way we do business--and our system of government. Change is coming--and you can be a part of it or just another spectator. To get a handle on what 21st century changes will mean to you, read Power Shift by A. Toffler, ISBN 0-553-29215-3, about $8. If what follows seems a trifle cynical, remember Ambrose Bierce's definition: "CYNIC: One who sees things as they are, and not as they ought to be; hence the custom among the Scythians of putting out the eyes of a cynic in order to improve his vision." I. POLITICAL PARTIES -- THE RAW BASICS Basically, a political party is just an organization of people who want the power to control the nation or the province. They initially form around one person with an idea, but that idea may not survive the test of time. As they age, parties often change the basic principles and ideas that they offer to the voters. For example, the Encylopedia Britannica contains these entries: "LIBERALISM is the creed, philosophy and movement which is committed to freedom as a method and policy in government, as an organizing principle in society and as a way of life for the individual and the community." and "CONSERVATISM is a term commonly used in politics to denote a preference for the old and tried rather than the new and untried." Obviously, Canada's Liberal and Conservative parties have strayed far from their original basics. The Conservatives strayed so far that they felt obliged, some time ago, to change the name of their party to the "Progressive Conservative Party." This name seems to denote a party dedicated to changing the old and tried forms that it was established to protect and preserve. The Liberal party kept its name, but abandoned its origins. The Liberal and Conservative parties originally formed in Britain, centuries ago. Their original names, "Whig" (Liberals) and "Tory" (Conservative), indicate the respect and admiration that they commanded, even in their earliest days. Even today, we find that "Whig" and "Tory" are still commonly used when talking about today's modern politicians. "Whig" originally meant "horse thief," and "Tory" meant "Papist outlaw." They were political realists, back then. We have other parties, of course. We have a socialist party, dedicated to avoiding the evils of monopoly capitalism. At the root of socialism is the idea that ownership and control of the means of production by capitalists is fundamentally wrong, because the controlling capitalist may abuse the workers. Socialism's solution to this problem is ownership and control of the means of production by the state. The basis for that idea seems to be the belief that neither the controlling politician nor the controlling bureaucrat will ever abuse the workers. Reformism arises from the individual circumstances of the time, and takes many forms. It is usually a reaction to the failure of a pre-existing government. As Robert A. Heinlein said, "Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from the highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." Political parties also divide according to Heinlein's division. Most political parties exist because they want the power to control every aspect of every citizen's life. A minority exist because they want to clean up the mess the first kind makes. II. HOW PARTY-BASED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY WORKS Confucius left us a rule that people and parties of Heinlein's first type tend to ignore. That is a pity; it is a good rule: "One should govern a large country as one would cook a very small fish. Excess only leads to disaster." Confucius was correct. Too fast, too hot, too much--the result is always disaster. It's true for both the fish and the nation. A politician or a party of Heinlein's first type tends to ignore that rule. The desire to control others overpowers the common sense understanding that forcing good people to live in patterns they resent will result in those good people hating your guts. Nearly every form of government passes more laws than it repeals. As a result, the density of law constantly increases, until it becomes impossible for any citizen to behave normally for a week without becoming eligible for several years of imprisonment, under badly designed, overcontrolling laws covering everything under the sun. With the density of law constantly increasing, the expense of trying to enforce all the laws, control all the people, and regulate all the businesses also increases. The number of government employees who produce nothing but aggravation for over-regulated citizens and businesses increases. The percentage of tax dollars spent doing things that the citizens do not agree need to be done increases. Eventually, the situation reaches a critical point, and there is an explosion. The critical point is unpredictable. The trigger that sets off the explosion when the critical point is reached may be excessive control, excessive taxation, policing excesses, willful refusal of government to face facts, or despair over government stupidity. When the critical point is reached, the result may be anything from armed revolt to the peaceful destruction of a major political party by ballot during a seemingly ordinary election. In a country with political parties, change can usually be done through the ballot box. The change usually comes before the situation has deteriorated to the point where armed revolt seems necessary. There are, however, fairly common exceptions. In Canada, until recently, our political system featured two major parties and several minor ones. In federal politics, the two major parties were the Liberals and Conservatives. In provincial politics, the major parties in a province could include other possibilities. It should be noted that the federal party has little or no connection with the provincial party of the same name. The two may differ wildly in policies, ideas, and ideals. It should never be assumed that anything about one applies to the other. Federally, the two major parties tended to alternate as government and main opposition. They became more and more alike. An election became a case of trading Tweedledee for Tweedledum, with no genuine change. Many voters lost faith in elections, because they could no longer "throw the rascals out." They could only put a slightly different set of rascals in. Our situation was aptly described by grafitti on downtown walls: "No matter who we vote for, the government always gets in." The Liberals and the Conservatives smugly regarded themselves as the two "natural governing parties." They were a private club. Where such exchanges are the norm, the citizens often become fed up with both major parties at about the same time. One of the minor parties may then blossom and grow until it becomes a major party, perhaps even during one lone election. This occurs as the governing "natural governing party" is being rejected. The news media and our old line parties commonly do not recognize that such a change is either important or permanent. They tend to regard it as a momentary loss of sanity or an embarrassing rudeness aimed at the established leaders of the nation. They expect that things will "return to normal" quite soon. Often, where a governing "natural governing party" is decisively overthrown, the change is permanent--as permanent as a change established by force of arms during a revolution. It is desirable that change by election be available. It is superior to change by force of arms--fewer innocent people are killed and wounded. Unfortunately, change by force of arms can occur, particularly when both the alternative major party and all of the available minor parties are rejected as substitutes for the governing major party that is being decisively rejected. To avoid the peril and bloodshed of violent revolution, it is always necessary to have a desirable alternative party. A country where all of the available parties are unacceptable is a country where the citizens have neglected their civic duties. They have not taken and held control of their political parties. It is a country where the number of citizens who belong to political parties is too small, and the major parties are too unrepresentative of the general population. Major parties are pursuing the special goals of their members, but they are special interest people whose goals are not those of average citizens. No one is offering government that is both good and popular. Where that situation develops, the critical point lies in the near future. Either a new major party will arise to offer what is wanted, an old major party will be restructured until it offers what is wanted, or the entire system will be swept away and replaced by a new form of government. Where the first two options are never offered, the situation often degenerates until the society turns to armed revolt and radical solutions. The damage that tiny, bullheaded political parties can do to their nation is enormous. In the Canadian situation, the early 1980s featured growing dissatisfaction with the two "natural governing parties," the Liberals and Conservatives. The only important small party, the socialist New Democratic Party, proposed "solutions" that involved going even further in the directions the voters most strongly rejected in the activities of the two major parties. By 1990, the new Reform party had arisen, tailored to meet the desires of the disaffected. In the federal election, it gathered about 50 seats, becoming a major party. The ruling federal Conservative "natural governing party" crashed to two seats and became impotent. At the time of writing, the impotent federal Conservative party is trying to analyze its impotence, trying to alter its basic nature to attract back the huge numbers of voters who have abandoned it. As this is written, there is little indication that it has learned any worthwhile lesson from its election disaster, or that it has any 21st century ideas to offer. At the time of writing, the new Reform party is locked in an internal struggle. Should the party adopt 21st century political methods and ideas, or should it become a "conventional" 20th century party--a clone of the impotent Conservative party--and engage in 20th century "politics as usual"? The future of the Reform party probably depends upon whether or not it can recognize the forces that destroyed the federal Conservative party, learn from its failures, and offer 21st century proposals for good government in a popular form. In the long run, only one of the two--Reform or Conservative-- will survive as a major Canadian party. Which it will be, at the time this was written, is uncertain. The Reform party suffers from frequently negative media attacks, but the Conservative party suffers from the disaffection of its earlier supporters. The surviving party will be the party that most successfully learns 21st century politics. III. 20TH CENTURY POLITICS--INSIDE A POLITICAL PARTY As this is being written, all Canadian political parties are still mired in 20th century methods of operation. These methods are obsolete, and any party that clings to using them will be destroyed within the next few years. But let's look at today: The key to local political power is a Riding Association. The key to national political power is a nationwide collection of Riding Associations. The term "Riding Association" is one of several names for these groups, so, for simplicity, we'll call them all "Riding Associations." What's a Riding Association? Canada is politically divided into Ridings. Each federal Riding sends one politician to Ottawa as a Member of Parliament; each provincial Riding sends one politician to the provincial capital as a Member of the Legislative Assembly or whatever they call the equivalent position in that province. The term "Riding" originally meant a zone small enough for an electioneering politician to ride around in, gathering votes. A political party consists of a national or provincial headquarters, a large number of Riding Associations, and, if it is successful, some elected politicians. If it has more elected politicians than the other parties, it becomes a government. A Riding Association consists of all of the members of that party who reside in that Riding. Their main job is to select the party candidate for election from that Riding, and work for his election. After the election, they are supposed to keep the local politician aware of the mood and desires of local voters. Surprisingly, many Riding Associations have voting members who cannot vote in elections--too young, or not Canadian citizens. That can result in names chosen by people ineligible to vote appearing on the ballot that you use to vote. Many elected politicians favor the inclusion of non-voting aliens in the Riding Association, because immigrants and visitors often need help. Membership in a Riding Association lets the alien thank and support "his" politician when the alien cannot vote. Riding Associations tend to include a majority of lawyers (often in there for political contacts and business reasons) and retired people (often in there just for something to do). A minority consists of people with special desires, such as wanting to repeal the law of gravity, abolish abortion, make abortion compulsory, or eliminate motor vehicles not powered by steam. Obviously, such a group is narrow and wildly unrepresentative of the general population. It is no wonder that they are often dead wrong when informing their politician about local desires. Riding Associations are usually small--2 to 90 members, for most of them. Amusingly, each usually features a huge Board of Directors. It is not unusual for every single member to be on the Board of Directors. That seems to be a harmless way of inflating egos, with no practical purpose behind it, but it certainly spreads responsibility for problems very thin. In your Riding, there are several of these tiny Riding Associations, one for each political party. They choose all of the names that will be on the ballot that you use to vote. If you are not a member of a Riding Association, you have no say in whose name is on the ballot; you are merely offered a choice of their choices. They're politically important; you are not. Riding Associations operate by illusion. They get no publicity at all between elections. They only get publicity at election time when there is a contest to see who will be the candidate. When there is a nomination contest to determine whose name will go on the election ballot, the candidates for that position start recruiting new party members--people who will vote for them in the candidate selection contest--at a furious rate. The Riding Association balloons. On candidate selection night, the Riding Association fills a hall with 500 to 5000 people--all "members of the party." It's quite impressive, and it gives the impression that the Riding Association is big and strong. The huge meeting gets full media coverage, as if it were all real. Once that night is over, almost all of those recruits go home and never return. The "regulars" (2 to 90, remember?) then operate the Riding Association until the next election. The "one-nighters" take no further part in Riding Association affairs, but they have created a "big and strong" illusion. That illusion does a good job of convincing voters that there is no point in joining the Riding Association if their views are in conflict with the views of the party's Leader. They think their lone voices would be swamped in the huge Riding Association. In fact, there are probably more members in your local gun club than there are in your local Riding Association. If even half the members of your gun club join the Riding Association, they will probably be the majority--with control of the party's bank account, its elected Executive, and whose name will be on the ballot for the next election. That is raw political power. Joining the party costs $5 or $10 per year. That is very cheap, considering how much raw political power you are buying. Once the Riding Association has an elected politician, a contested nomination becomes abnormal. Instead, when the next election is called, the regulars rubber stamp his name onto the election ballot. There is little or no publicity, no recruiting of "one-nighters," and no competition for the nomination. During the years he or she is in office, the politician works on a relationship with the regulars. It is in the politician's self-interest to make the regulars believe that they are "special" because they have a close relationship with a powerful politician. It helps persuade them to rubber stamp. It is not in the politicians' or the regulars' self-interest to recruit people into the Riding Association. It would disturb the cozy relationship of what's really become a private club. The regulars tend to become devoted admirers of "their" politician, and to endorse everything the politician suggests to them as being a good thing. Constructive criticism is rare. There is a theory that a Riding Association keeps the politician in touch with the local scene. That is often false. Most Riding Associations are too small and unrepresentative to be able to do it. They usually become too devoted to "their" politician to ever say, "We're sorry, but you and the party Leader have your heads up your rear ends again. We locals disagree completely." The evil result of this situation is that the politician runs the Riding Association. The politician tells the Riding Association membership that what the party Leader says is right, the Riding Association regulars agree, and local voters are ignored. If it were doing the job it should be doing, the Riding Association would be telling the politician what the local voters think and want. It would be making it clear to the politician that unless he works for the best interests of the local voters, his name will not be on the ballot for the next election. That sort of local pressure on politicians is vital to healthy debate and good decisions in the capital. Without it, each politician in the capital is dominated by the party Leader. Party Leaders are influenced by nation-wide or province-wide voting patterns. They believe that if they offend the two largest provinces (or, provincially, cities), their party cannot win an election. Therefore, the interests of most voters are often sacrificed to the interests of the two "big ones." The Leaders make offerings, usually in the "pork barrel" area, by favoring the "big ones" with tax money handouts, government projects, or "incentives" (bribes) to companies to move there. Where the Leader makes a decision that damages the interests of a politician's Riding voters, the Riding's politician is usually ordered to vote as directed by the Leader--and does. Both his ability and will to represent the people who sent him to the capital are overridden. If he does not vote as directed, he may lose his corner office, his ticket on a junket to the Bahamas, or his nice "extra" job with its extra pay and perks. In many cases, the local politician has to tell the Leader that voting in favor of a particular decision or bill will be very damaging to the possibility of his being re-elected in the next election. Where that happens, the Leader may make arrangements for the local politician to be "unavoidably absent" on the day the vote is taken--for reasons of political health. That gambit allows the local politician to tell the local voters that he would have voted against the decision or bill, if he had been there. Hopefully, that will allow him to win the next election. Sure, it's deceptive, but it often works. Party policies are set by party conventions. Before they are adopted, the policies suggested by Riding Associations are usually revised and edited by a committee. The committee is usually dominated by the views of the party's Leader. The policy is usually adopted only if agreed to by the party's Leader and worded in a way satisfactory to the party's Leader. Other than those few points, it's "grassroots input" all the way. During an election, the party literature usually features the policies that the Leader thinks will sell, while any others adopted by the party convention are ignored or underplayed. Party Leaders are selected by party conventions. Party conventions are attended by Riding Association members who can afford to go and have time to go, factors that severely reduce the range of viewpoints available at a party convention. It reinforces the dominance of lawyers and retired people. A major problem with 20th century party activities lies in the fact that the strong politicians dominate the weak Riding Associations. The tiny group of specialized politicians cannot be representative of the general public, or have a good "feel" for what masses of people are thinking. The Riding Associations are also too small to incorporate a good understanding of the views of the general public. That structure contains the seeds of its own destruction. In the 21st century, the internal communication networks of various groups will be used to recruit their members into political parties, and the current weak Riding Associations have no effective defences against such activities. IV. HOW A POLITICAL PARTY GETS ITS MONEY A typical Riding Association in Canada has between 2 and 90 members. Its annual budget is a few thousand dollars, collected as $5 or $10 annual dues from members, plus a few donations. Those numbers look ridiculously small. They immediately raise the question, "If the Riding Association is that small, how does it pay the huge expenses of elections"? Most political donations are made by people and businesses who are not party members. For their donations, they are given a tax break. If you donate $100 to a party, you deduct $75 from your taxes. On the other hand, if you donate $100 to the Red Cross, you only deduct $100 from your taxable income. Deducting $100 from your taxable income cuts your taxes by about $25, instead of the $75 cut in your taxes you get as a result of donating to a political party. Interesting! The theory is that the politicians and charities are desirable, so donations to them should result in cuts to your taxes. Of course, that lessens the government's income, so it must jack up the tax rates for everyone else in order to recover the losses. Apparently, the politicians who write our tax laws think that a political party is more valuable to society than the Red Cross. The tax laws give you three times as big a tax break for your $100 donation to a political party as they do for your donation to the Red Cross. Some might question their sense of values. There are also complex procedures to allow parties to recover money spent during the election from tax dollars. With so much of the money coming from tax revenues, parties do not need many members to fund them; the taxpayers do it, unknowingly. Interestingly enough, if tax breaks and tax money access were closed off completely, nearly every political party in Canada would be bankrupt within a year. They are that dependent on their access to your tax money. It is, of course, a crime to enact legislation which benefits your political party or your personal interests. The method by which these "goodies for political parties" entered our laws are worth further study. It could not be that when all parties agree to enact legislation to benefit political parties, police hired and paid by governments do not care to investigate. V. 21ST CENTURY POLITICS--INSIDE THE POLITICAL PARTY The internal operational structure of our political parties is currently very weak. It relies upon illusion: If the 2 to 90 members collaborate with "their" elected politician, almost no one will notice that the politician's name on the ballot is there because it was chosen by a tiny, unrepresentative group--who didn't even consider any other names. In the 21st century, business and social groups will pay more attention to Riding Associations. Various groups, with varying points of view, will actively recruit their members into Riding Associations in an effort to nominate individuals who they believe will better represent local interests or the national interest or some special interest. As this tendency increases, the Riding Associations will become much larger and more representative of the local community. Instead of today's under-3-per-cent membership, the total membership counting all parties will be more like the U.S.A.'s, where 38 per cent of all voters are paid-up party members. Unlike the 20th century "one-nighters," many of these new members will continue to work within the Riding Association during non- election periods. The power of a Riding Association to fire a politician by refusing to put his name on the ballot is no longer exotic knowledge, known only to a favored few. It is reality. Already, that power has been used in a few cases. It does not always work. The Leader of the Liberal Party, for example, refused to sign the nomination papers for several candidates selected by Riding Association contests, because he did not like their choices. The candidates were forced out of the election, and new candidates appointed by the Leader were run instead. That was, of course, a further erosion of the basic principles of our democracy. If the voters in a Riding cannot even choose who their candidate will be, what is the ballot worth to them? The power to refuse to nominate or renominate is now recognized as raw political power. The Liberal method of appointing substitutes did not work well and got the party into hot water. That will get worse as more locally-minded candidates are selected, "forcing" the Leader to override more choices. As groups move into the Riding Association to take advantage of that available power, other groups follow them in. Radical groups will fail for lack of support, and moderate groups will succeed--working for local issues and national policies. This new reason for joining a party--to change something!-- seriously alarms some party Leaders, politicians, and Riding Association Executives. In their minds, the party is a private club, and not open to new people, new ideas, or new methods. Loud raving about "infiltrators" and "special interest groups" fills the air. Measures are taken to prevent the "special interest group" people from joining the party. Often, those measures violate the bylaws of the Riding Association, and that is justified by claiming that the situation is an "emergency." None of these tactics will work in the 21st century. A Riding Association that prevents new members from joining also cuts off ideas, funds, workers, and everything else that a party needs in an election. When it drives applicants away, they join a party that offers 21st century ideas and methods. The 21st century party encourages special interest groups to join, because it knows that radical proposals are voted down if the group of voters is large enough. While 20 people might vote to repeal the law of gravity, 200 probably will not, and 2000 certainly will not. Canada's firearms community has a unique advantage in 21st century politics. People from every business, trade, and occupation are members of the firearms community. They are a representative cross-section of our society, from all levels. Above and beyond their firearms interests, they are as diverse and representative a group as could be assembled. Of all groups that might use the tactic of joining the Riding Association in order to gain raw political power, they are the best. They are in no way a "special interest group." They cannot be: There are too many of them, and they come from too many walks of life. Firearms community members tend to be slightly above average in education, income, and honesty. They are also usually above average in being law-abiding, and in working hard. They tend to be a bit more oriented toward the idea that a person should be held responsible for what he does. In short, they are precisely the sort of people that a political party most needs: They are the representative voice of the people, slightly more oriented toward responsible, democratic behavior than the overall average. VI. 20TH CENTURY POLITICS--ACTIONS FROM OUTSIDE THE PARTY First, and most important, there is money. The person or business wanting influence over politicians donates big money to political campaigns--often to both major parties. This tactic ensures a sympathetic ear in government when needed. True, the donated money will be spent, then recovered from tax dollars and put into the party's bank account. The donation is only a stopgap method of supplying money for a short period--money which can be spent, then magically recovered and used for other purposes. Unfortunately, the system limits the ability to strongly influence the decisions of politicians to those who have money. Many people write letters, send form letters, or sign petitions in an attempt to influence politicians. Politicians count these efforts--or weigh them--while judging their real importance. The rule of thumb is: 500 signatures on a petition translates as 1 angry voter; 1 signature on 1 personal letter means 1 angry voter; and 1 personal letter means 500 angry voters, because 499 will never write a personal letter, even if they are furious. The count of angry voters becomes important only when it indicates a serious risk that the angry voter total could change the result of the next election--if they stay angry long enough. An important subdivision of the personal letter category is the letter from a person with a problem. Politicians deal with such letters, on the theory that helping a local voter will cause that voter to go out and sing the praises of the politician and party. Some politicians do this work because they enjoy helping people, but that is not always the reason. VII. 21ST CENTURY POLITICS--ACTIONS FROM OUTSIDE THE PARTY Access to voters in the 21st century will be primarily by special promises made to very large groups who have good internal communication networks. In a world where many large groups--each several per cent of all voters--have good internal communication networks, it is foolish for a party to send internally devised promises to every voter via the media and junk mail. Not everyone wants a four-door Chevrolet. In the 21st century, the seller must offer what a much more choosy buyer wants--or the buyer will go elsewhere. And that applies to politics. Canada's firearms community is already using 21st century politics. As this is being written, our new system has been successful in electing a majority provincial Conservative government in Manitoba, a majority provincial Conservative government in Ontario, and a majority NDP government in Saskatchewan. That's three in a row, known as a "hat trick." Our hat trick was accomplished by using a rather primitive application of 21st century politics. In each province, firearms community representatives meet with the political party campaign leadership. The firearms community leaders have some interesting things to say: The federal government's estimate of firearms community membership is 25 per cent of all Canadian households, a figure known to be too low. Our estimate--based solidly on government statistical data and calculated in three different ways--says that the figure is actually about 40 per cent. We represent a very large bloc of voters. The firearms community is a "swing vote"--that is, it consists of people who will change the way they vote on the basis of a party's position on firearms control issues. The 'anti-firearms majority' is not a swing vote. It has not changed the way it votes over a firearms control issue in any election--including the Kim Campbell crash, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan. Your main communications paths to the eyes and ears of voters are junk mail and the media. You know that your attempts to communicate with voters by offerings to the media result in warped or garbled versions of your positions being received. You know that your junk mail offerings often wind up being used to wrap fish. We are here to offer you a superior method of communication to a huge bloc of voters. We have an excellent internal communications network. If we choose to do so, we can lay your party's promises before the entire firearms community--clear and undistorted. Your material will arrive through a channel that our people know and trust, accompanied by our comments on your position. The media, in our experience, usually do not pick up the promises that parties transmit through our internal communications network. When they do, they tend to disregard them as being unimportant--which is a serious error. You cannot buy access to our network. What flows through that network is under firearms community control, and it will remain under our control. We do not tie ourselves to any particular party, and we never will. We study your positions, we analyze them and we inform our people through our internal communication network. We may make recommendations to our people, but the final choice is always theirs. If you wish, we will sit down with your people and talk about the sort of promises which would most attract our people. We do understand your problems and limitations, and we would be happy to explain our problems, needs and capabilities. In recent elections, our people became active members of political parties, vigorous campaigners, and generous donors. Our people can be a major asset to your party. We have noted a very strong tendency for our people to connect themselves to the provincial party which offered us the best promises very soon in the campaign. Because we got their positions quite early, we were able to communicate them through our network quite early, although we initially had to tell our people that the other parties had not responded to our requests for their positions. That damaged the other parties in the eyes of our people. Our evaluations and recommendations are quite thorough. We understand the limitations and powers of government. We are not interested in vague promises or sweeping generalizations. We want to know what the facts are, and to how many decimal places. If you make promises to our people, please be aware that every promise you make that goes through our internal communications network will be carefully recorded. If your party fails to deliver on its promises, they will be repeated--in full--when the next election is called. From our experience in earlier elections, our recommendations and evaluations have a very powerful effect on the members of the Canadian firearms community. Their "swing vote" effect has already been enough to produce majority governments for parties who offered the best incentives to the firearms community. It has also been enough to severely damage a party's election results in several elections. Where our internal communications network portrays a particular party as hostile to the firearms community's interests, that party is damaged. Take a long look back at the Kim Campbell crash. She deliberately alienated 25 to 40 per cent of all voters in the hope that the 'anti-firearms majority' would vote for her. It didn't work. The Ontario Provincial election was particularly spectacular. Six weeks before election day, the Liberal party was at 57 per cent in the polls, and seemed to be a sure bet to form a majority government. Then the Conservative party offered good promises to the firearms community, and the Liberal campaign headquarters authorized a campaign literature paper that mentioned setting up "gun-free zones" in Ontario. The Liberal "gun-free zones" comment was analyzed, and the fact that they could easily be set up by a chief firearms officer was broadcast. All the officer has to do, under bill C-68, is revoke all the firearms licenses in the "zone" for the "good and sufficient reason" that the government wishes to reduce violent crime in that area. Both positions were fed into the firearms community's internal communications network, along with the detailed evaluation of the Liberal "gun-free zone" offer. The result is history. From "57 per cent committed Liberal voters" to a Conservative 82-seat majority government--in 6 weeks flat. The members of the Ontario firearms community received that information via a channel that they knew and trusted. The Conservative message of alliance came through loud and clear, but the Liberals' frantic efforts to disengage themselves from "gun- free zones" did not. In 21st century politics, the power to grant or deny access to an internal communication network is raw political power. The Conservative access to the firearms community network was a key to power; the Liberals' inability to use that network severely damaged their chances of victory, and they lost--big. Reversing the viewpoint, the leaders of the firearms community gained a tremendous amount of political power by their control of access to that network. The politicians who ignored them or refused to talk to them lost the election; those who worked with them won the election. There sits the future of our politics. The firearms community is not the only huge bloc with good internal communications; it is merely first in Canada to use this new method of dealing with politics. From now on, however, all politicians will have to judge whether it is safe to alienate 25 to 40 per cent of all voters over gun control issues. The Canadian firearms community has a long memory, and a firm policy. Regardless of what politicians say, the passage of legislation is the responsibility of the party in power. Firearms control is not a crime issue, not a gun control issue. It is a political issue, and the party responsible for passing the legislation is the party that will be tied to that legislation--and all its side effects--on the next election day. For the firearms community, the primary effect of Bill C-68 is solid. The next federal election campaign begins on the day C-68 is passed. The political parties responsible for its passage will be firmly held to their responsibility. VIII. POLITICAL ACTIVISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY--INTERNAL Example: Joan is the President of the Kingville Hunt club. The club's members have been irritated by gun control laws, which have adversely affected several members and seriously worried the rest. She has tried talking to Big Al, their MP, but Big Al's party helped enact latest new gun control law. He thinks it is a good law, and that Joan should just shut up and go away. MARCH 15: Joan decides that Big Al is not doing a good job of representing the local voters, who are solidly opposed to the way the gun control laws have gone. She consults this handbook in order to learn how to become politically powerful. 1. Join the Riding Association. If it is suffering from paranoid delusions that it is being "infiltrated," that can be difficult, so get your membership and four other things on your first approach... APRIL 1: Joan goes to visit the Big Al's Riding Association's Secretary. She joins Big Al's political party; it costs her $10 for a year's membership. She picks up a copy of the Bylaws of the Association, a book of membership applications, the address of the party's provincial office and the address of its federal headquarters. 2. Recruit more people into the Riding Association. Make a list showing the name and address, plus fax and phone number of every person you have recruited. And their email address! MAY 1: Joan has recruited 35 members of her Hunt Club into Big Al's Riding Association. Two of them have picked up books of membership applications from the Secretary, and are recruiting. JULY 4: An alarmed Secretary informs Big Al that Joan has just turned in 46 more membership applications, complete with cheques and cash for the $10 annual dues. Riding Association membership now stands at 77 before-Joan members plus 81 members recruited by this one active woman and her friends. Big Al is horrified. The party is being "infiltrated" by Joan's people. He calls an emergency meeting of the Executive. The Executive decides that no more membership applications will be given to Joan--or to anyone else. A membership recruiting drive is launched, running July 10 to 20, to prevent "those people" from gaining control of "our Riding Association." AUGUST 1: Harry, one of the two Hunt Club members who are actively selling party memberships, turns in 25 more applications to the Secretary, and asks for another book of applications. He is told that there are none available. AUGUST 15: Harry returns with 10 more membership applications, made out on a form similar to the party's form--which he generated on his home computer. The Secretary refuses to accept them, as "not being on the right form." 3. Read the Riding Association's Bylaws and use them. AUGUST 18: Joan and Harvey visit the Secretary. Joan points out that there are no provisions in the Riding Association Bylaws for refusal of a membership application on the grounds that it is on the wrong form. The Secretary refuses to discuss the matter, and refuses again to accept the applications. The two leave, baffled, and the Secretary triumphantly reports to Big Al. 4. If the Riding Association officials refuse to process membership applications, arrange for as much pulicity as possible for their undemocratic stand. Then bypass them and send the applications directly to the party's provincial office. AUGUST 29: The Secretary receives notification from the party's provincial office that Harvey's 10 membership applications were forwarded to the provincial office and processed there. The Riding Association has another 10 new members. AUGUST 30: The Secretary calls the provincial office and complains bitterly that the provincial office is "sabotaging" the party by processing the applications. The office points out that it has to do that, because the Bylaws require them to do it. The Secretary demands that the provincial office stall applications. 5. If the provincial office officials stall or refuse to process membership applications, arrange for as much publicity as possible for that undemocratic behavior. Then bypass them and send the applications to the party's federal headquarters. 6. If the Riding Association refuses to hold meetings in order to prevent you from making changes, the Riding Association Bylaws can be used to force a meeting. SEPTEMBER 11: The Secretary receives a double-registered letter. In it, 20 members in good standing demand in wrting that a General Meeting of the Riding Association be called within 21 days, as provided for in Bylaw 42. 7. Call or fax every person you have recruited and remind them of the meeting on the day before, and on the day of the meeting. OCTOBER 01: The meeting is held. Big Al is counting on the support of the 77 "pre-Joan" members, plus 56 members recruited during the July "anti-infiltration recruiting drive." He thinks he has 133 "sure votes," against 129 held by "those people." 179 people actually show up at the meeting. Big Al's Executive checks all membership cards, and finds out that 91 of them are on his "sure vote" list. "Joan's people" only have 88 votes! Votes on issues and motions do not go the way Big Al expected. Most votes are close to 93 voting with "Joan's people" and 86 voting for Big Al's traditional way of doing things, but several of the votes are nearly unanimous. The "us" and "them" division is beginning to break down, as the new members are discovered to be reasonable people with new--and good--ideas. The Riding Association votes to hold its Annual General Meeting on 15 November. 8. As soon as you are sure they will pass, replace the existing Bylaws with the set in this book, or a similar set. Most Riding Association Bylaws are badly written, give too much power to the Executive, or have other serious flaws. OCTOBER 13: The Secretary receives a double-registered letter containing a motion to replace the Riding Association's Bylaws with a new set, enclosed. The motion is accompanied by the documents and signatures required for such a motion. OCTOBER 15: Big Al discovers that the new Bylaws, if passed, will require an annual audit of the books. The results of the audit will be open to every member of the Riding Association. It prohibits members who have been members for less than 90 days from voting in a contested nomination meeting, eliminating the illusory "ballooning" of membership by "one-nighters." Big Al is horrified. Riding Association funds are political funds, and allowing the membership to know what happens to that money is highly irregular in most Riding Associations. He also discovers that aliens and other people who are not eligible to vote in the Riding in an election will not be eligible for membership in the Riding Association. That will cut his solid support from immigrant groups he has assisted. NOVEMBER 15: The motion to adopt the new set of Bylaws passes. A new Executive is elected, with only a few "pre-Joan" people. Although Big Al sadly regards the situation as a bad one, he sets out to learn to learn what his new masters want. It is crystal clear to him that his future has changed. His political career liess in the hands of the Riding Association members. Either Big Al will learn to represent the people who elected him--regardless of what the party's Leader wants--or his name will not be on the ballot in the next election. IX. THE PARTY WHIP AND THE 21st CENTURY MP The elected politicians from a particular party are known as the party caucus in the capital. In 20th century politics, the Leader tells the caucus what to do, the party Whip carries his messages to them, and the party usually votes as a solid bloc. The Whip is a powerful figure, but not a cabinet minister. His job is to keep the troops in line, threatening them with punishment if they break ranks and vote against the Leader's orders. 20th century caucus MPs usually obey him without question, because he can punish them. The Leader sets the punishment. Recently, Liberal Leader Jean Chretien has fired MPs off committees and threatened certain Liberal MPs with keeping their names off the next federal election ballot if they will not vote as he wishes. He can do that, because the Liberals require the Leader's signature endorsing every Liberal candidate for election. That method of Leader control fails when the Riding Association can also keep the MP's name off the election ballot--and just may do it. Its power becomes equal to hat of the Leader. True, the Liberal rules allow the Leader to appoint a candidate against the wishes of the Riding Association, even a candidate the Riding Association has rejected. That is not democracy, and it will not work in most cases. The appointed candidate will be defeated, frequently with the Liberal party's own Riding Association actively working against the Liberal candidate. In 20th century politics, the Whip is there to make sure the government does not fall--as it will if a major bill is defeated in House voting. He gives the permission to be absent if the MP's vote is not critical, orders the MP to be there and vote the "right" way if it is. He is loyal to his Leader, not the voters. In 21st century politics, the Whip gives his orders, but the MP may refuse to obey. That does not mean that the government will fall; it means that, unless the Leader is a fool, the bill will have to be withdrawn, and revised or scrapped. That should improve the quality of legislation significantly. It is far more important to kill bad legislation than to pass legislation with flaws. In the 21st century, bad legislation will be easier to recognize: It is the legislation that some MPs simply refuse to vote for. At present, the Leader's belief that a piece of legislation is good is enough to see it forced through--regardless of how bad it is, and regardless of how much harm it will do to "unimportant" Ridings. As long as the Leader-Whip system can be used to force the MP to vote the "right" way, the Leader is practically a dictator. It is a serious defect in our form of democracy. It would take major constitutional change to completely solve that problem, but there is an easy path open to us. If the MP is certain that going against the Leader will cost him his nice corner office, but going against his Riding Association will end his political career, that may change the choice he will make. If the Riding Association makes it clear that his nomination in the next election depends upon his representing the interests of the Riding and not those of the Leader, it controls his career. That is a revolutionary concept. Many 20th century politicians will claim that it is entirely wrong, and alien to our form of government. They claim that the MP is sent to the Capital to represent the nation (or province) and not the Riding. Certainly, there are times when the interests of the Riding must give way to the larger interests of the nation or province. The MP must be able to look at situations, and make good decisions. If his decision is justified, he should have little trouble in convincing the Riding Association that what he did was right. If he cannot successfully explain why he did what he did, he will be fired. That should quickly improve our politician quality. Slavishly doing as ordered by the Leader is not making good decisions. It is abandoning the right to make decisions. Wild claims that MPs who actually represent their Ridings will bring all business to a halt should be ignored. If something is worth doing, it will be done. If legislation is refused, it can be improved until it is acceptable. Governing parties are not defeated on the basis of legislation that they did not pass, unless they were foolish enough to try and ram things through. In the 21st century, proposed legislation will be more carefully drafted, and there will be less of it. Failure to do a good job of drafting the legislation will result in its rejection, by Riding MPs, on the basis that it will harm the Ridings. The rule of Confucius will be recognized and honored: "One should govern a large country as one would cook a very small fish. Excess only leads to disaster." THE CHOICE IS YOURS. YOU CAN CONTINUE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT OUR NATION IS GOVERNED BY THAT TINY UNDER-3-PER-CENT MINORITY, OR YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. YOU CAN TAKE THE DESTINY OF THE NATION INTO YOUR OWN HANDS, AND SHAPE ITS FUTURE. National Firearms Association (NFA) Headquarters Membership and publication Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 439-1394 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 439-4091 fax: (403) 640-1144