Thursday, September 27, 2007

Justify Rebellion?

John Locke had a hard time specifying what would justify a citizen to rebel against his or her government; eventually he basically left the power of judgment in the sole hands those who make the decision.

John Locke explored such questions, because as he wrote, governments were being threatened with upheaval. I am no John Locke, but right now the Liberal Party is being threatened with rebellion. The question I ask is, are these people justified?

The Liberal members I am talking about who wish to change the leadership are numerous, they range from bloggers, to possible liberal candidates, to MPs; the force they are wishing to rebel against is their leader, Stephane Dion.

Strong evident reasons to justify a rebellion would be failure by Mr. Dion to fulfill his duties as Leader; in effect he would be breaking the contractual agreement that is the constitution of the Liberal Party. The Constitution of the Party states:

I see that Stephane Dion has met these particular responsibilities.

It could be argued there are other duties or responsibilities of the Leader that are conventional or unspoken. Breach of these responsibilities would be more difficult to use as justification unless they are universally agreed upon or historically evident.

One could argue that a responsibility of the Leader is to ensure election victory or to be in essence a leader with good chances of winning an election; though not in the constitution, this responsibility could be abstracted from the fact a political party needs to win an election to affect it's vision.

If indeed someone did pose such an argument, it would not relate to the present circumstances, and therefore would be invalid. The point that would make the argument invalid, is that no one could say with any evidence that the Liberal Party will lose the next election. It could be argued that the Liberal Party is weak in Quebec and is partly demoralized, but that is only the present circumstances; extrapolation would be a logical error. In fact, one would think the situation would only improve as the Party becomes more cognizant of the problems it faces. Therefore if one is to attempt to justify rebellion because of Stephane Dion's inelectability or problems in Quebec, they are using a weak argument that is based on even weaker extrapolation.

I have attempted to answer, at least in part, when Liberal members are justified to rebel. I pointed out that it they would have a stronger argument if the Leader did not fulfill his written contractual duties, I also illustrated that their argument must not be based on extrapolations.

I have stated I am no John Locke, but I do agree with him. All those who wish to rebel against Stephane Dion, you do so with only yourself to judge your actions right or wrong.



Blogger Dan McKenzie said...

Can you please change that about my blog. I do not support a change of leadership, I support St├ęphane.

As I said yesterday, on farnwide, "Admitting defeat now and entering a bitter battle between Ignatieff and whoever the figures would be that would oppose his coronation is of no interest to me. Frankly, I'm not interested at this point in winning an election with anyone else as our leader."

10:30 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

I apologize, it was my hasty misinterpretation.

10:34 PM  
Blogger Dan McKenzie said...

No problem.

10:38 PM  
Blogger rogered said...

there appears to be dissension within the Liberal party - why is this?

11:08 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

It's human nature to base present course's of action on predictions of the future. Sometimes those predictions aren't justified or don't account for the whole picture. Polls in Quebec are but a small part of the picture and the situation can be changed prior to any election.

11:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home