People in Canada are now discussing the issue of how to reform the Senate, and make this establishment more accountable and be an institution that is all inclusive with people from every walk of life. As the Senate now stands it is a place where the elite get to sent to for their loyalty to a particular party which now has a hold over them.
People have even mentioned the Australian Senate, as something to be copied, but that still leaves the question of party loyalty untouched, so that is also taking us no where in the area of reform. Perhaps there is another avenue that we can take in reforming the Senate. When someone is ordered to stand jury duty they have to go before a panel that questions them and if the panel that a juror is acceptable to sit on the jury then that person must abide by the panel. Just consider that once you are a juror you have no choice in the matter and must serve.
Since jurors come from all walks of life, they have already been vetted, and the person's character and education has been given a thorough going over. The juror whether he/she is a receptionist, a waiter/ waitress, an electrician, a fireman/firewoman, security guard, lawyer, doctor, India Chief, auto mechanic , librarian, manager or some other job, they cannot refuse. Consider that the person chosen for jury duty might have to decide on the fate of someone who is being tried for murder. If they can handle that, then why can't they be Senators?
But, with all that I have said above, there should be a proviso, that to be a Senator one must be apolitical. Being apolitical and not belonging to any political party, this person does not owe any loyalty that could in some way influence their thinking. In other words, they do not owe any debt to the people who sent them before a panel to be chosen as a Senator. Thus, no politician can influence a Senator to do anything that they want. By this route that Senator becomes an independent person working on behalf of the people. Now there is where Democracy can be workable, without any political interference from outside.
What I am therefore proposing is Democracy in its truest and purist form, with maximum input from the citizenry.
Kenneth T. Tellis