Complaining about the state of
politics and politicians in Canada is a familiar refrain in which we all
succumb to whistling Dixie in the wind. Confused? Don`t be, you are not alone.
The ideology that our elected officials are more intelligent, self-motivated, and
free of bias, prejudice and possessing a higher degree of moral fiber; compared
to other Canadians is simply absurd.
Politics is the
fluidity of a wide consensus of ideals and base moral tenets in which we
identify ourselves; as do we all transform, mobilize and evolve so should the
ideals of government policies which govern Canadians on multiple governmental
levels. Expecting politics to remain stagnant, unable or unwilling to adapt to its
citizenry; resembles the behaviours of a child wishing everyone could be able
to see his imaginary friend…forever.
Canadians who choose to represent a
constituency and elected by a democratic mechanism; have the responsibility to
be themselves. Politicians are not exclusively, morally and ethically
"beholden" to their constituency. One cannot be all to everyone; as
any politician cannot represent the views of every constituent within his constituency.
Therefore why do we still mandate such a position from our elected
representatives? Columnist Andrew Coyne is of the opinion that,
“Politics
is about packs; the more ruthless, more disciplined, more pack-like of the
parties mauls the others into submission. It prizes loyalty, not before all
other virtues, but to their exclusion. We hunt together, the aspiring politician is told. Stick with the pack. And so
each learns to scrape and smear, to manipulate and deceive, to promise one and
threaten another, exactly as he is told. That is how institutional power is won.
Everyone understands that. What is interesting is what happens when power collides
with principle: when the pack confronts, not another pack, but a determined
individual of conscience. Nothing has prepared the pack for this. Faced with
someone they cannot frighten, and who does not want anything from them, they
are bewildered. All of their normal tactics and approaches are suddenly
useless. All of their power turns to dust.”
An interesting concept to be sure; however
do we still have the obligation to support such a tenet in the 21st
century? If we “understand” how institutional power is won than we ought to
change the laws in which it governs us all. And to that end we must examine how
the apex of the Prime Minister`s Office political reach, extended to persons
responsible to develop policy; transmit communications and influence the manner
in which independent 3rd party institutions analyze federal
government behaviours within Canada.
According to former Pierre Elliott Trudeau
policy adviser, Brian Flemming,
“What remains are increasingly efficient and ever more powerful
prime minister’s offices with their staffs of policy advisers, media
spinmeisters and pollsters, all beholden personally to the prime minister for
their status and paycheques. As a result, many once great offices of state have
become dignified shells of their former selves,”
To that end what have we created? Something resembling the governance of ancient
Rome; with one difference we do not excise the power of the Roman forum. Canadians
have no appetite for violence; do not feel comfortable in massive public
demonstration of civil disobedience such as the Civil Movement of the 1960’s in
the USA. We seem to endure such injustices and hope for the best. A hope that
changing political affiliation from one party to the next will usher the kind
of social revolution we so desperately seek. As Donald Savoie explains,
“The country’s constitutional democracy is based on the
supremacy of Parliament, the system’s legislative branch. But while the
executive branch has expanded its power and while the judicial branch has grown
in influence with the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the
people’s forum, where democracy’s blood flows, has atrophied.”
We grow angrier more despondent and as a
result Canadians resort to re-distribute their vote in the rhetoric of
extremism often found in political parties such as Alberta`s Wild Rose Party or
the Péquiste party in Québec. What are we to do with the “One man rule?” If the
Opposition Parties themselves cannot or lack the political will to fight
outright injustices made by the PMO’ Office; then do we not deservingly merit
to be “enslaved” by the very measures put in place in the Charter?
We snide and made contemptuous farces,
made a mockery of Canadians in the province of Québec, who legitimately
assembled “en masse” wearing masks, banging pots and pans; publicly,
unilaterally, sending a message to the provincial Liberals that laws made to
control, limit, and define what constitutes as a lawful public demonstration is undemocratic.
We moan and cry foul when leaders and
ministers elected to politically operate within the mandate of their political platforms;
go astray and purposely renege on promises made. Thus creating the illusion and
perhaps instilling the fears of Canadians have… a reality. Losing faith in the
sanctity of political office and therefore in politicians, in all three levels
of government. Duff Conacher renowned author and one of the founders of
Democracy Watch stipulated in an article published in iPolitics,
“Given the number of people hurt in various ways by this
dishonesty, and how damaging lying is to reasonable, democratic debate, you
would think that passing a law requiring honesty in politics would be a
top priority of politicians across the country. In an Elections Canada survey in 2000, the highest-ranked reason for decreased
interest in politics by non-voters was “false promises/ dishonesty/lack of
confidence in politicians” while the second-highest ranked change that would
make non-voters more interested in politics was “more honesty, responsibility,
accountability” in government; an Elections Canada survey in 2006 found that 60% of non-voters were turned off to politics
because of dishonesty and other reasons. Judges have ruled in lawsuits
filed against promise-breaking politicians that voters are naive to believe
election promises, and so they have refused to punish misleaders. And
believe it or not, the federal Conservative government’s so-called “Federal
Accountability Act” (FAA) actually decreases accountability significantly by
deleting the honesty rule from the rules that apply to the Prime Minister,
Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government
officials (and the Conservatives failed to include 22 other promised measures
in the FAA and may not fully implement the FAA.
In 2011 we have yet again
elected (a majority no less) a Conservative (Reform Party?) government promising sweeping reforms; introducing
legislation to render the PMO’s Office accountable, to continue its political
agenda in reforming the senate, equal representation, etc…Did it occur? As Marc Jarvis, doctoral candidate and
co-author of Democratizing the Constitution:
Reforming Responsible Government suggests we need, “…to
correct the institutional imbalance in power that exists between prime
ministers and Parliament in Canada.”
We continue to witness the
steadfast support of western provinces nursing the “us” against “them” in
respect to West vs. East dominance of federal politics; furthering the
polarization of Canadians and demanding a re-examination of the “first out of
the post” rule.
What exists within our society
that impedes Canadians to cultivate the “political citizen” within our midst? There
needs to be a shift in the way we perceive the nature of politics and
politicians. We need to emphasize the merits in the pursuance of independent thought,
and promoting a political culture in which public service is valued, nurtured
and of significance. To this end “political citizens” should be cultivated and encouraged
to seek higher office; to be properly remunerated and afforded some latitude in
which they can continue to function within their respective family environment.
Of note, politicians
should have increased “independent” political
mobility within a tripartite government system. According to Alison Loat,
co-founder and executive director of Samara, the key lies in improving the
political and civic engagement within Canada,
“…to them, it is often the way
political parties manage themselves, their members and their work that drives
this dysfunction. Some of the greatest frustrations these MPs faced during
their political careers came from their own parties. MPs repeatedly spoke of
how decisions from their leadership were opaque, arbitrary and even unprofessional,
and often ran counter to the MPs’ desires to practice politics constructively.
It would be easy to dismiss these as words of a few bitter partisans, but that
would be inaccurate. Almost without exception, these former parliamentarians
spoke with reverence at the opportunity to serve in Parliament, and looked back
on their experience as time well spent. In fact, they consistently said the
work of Parliament was critical to the way Canadians live together. Given what
these MPs are saying, perhaps we should be asking different questions. Is it
true Parliament is broken or dysfunctional? Or is it more accurate to say our
political parties are?”
This brings us to the electorate itself; why
do we continue to tolerate voter apathy in Canada? Yes being dissatisfied with
political parties is understandable. To publically argue as a whole that we do
not believe that our “votes” does not affect real change in Canadian politics
is equally relevant. However purposely avoiding not to vote under these point
of views, does not negate the responsibility of all Canadians inherently
possess; in having the obligation
to do so. Robin V. Sears, a former diplomat for the province of Ontario
articulates this issue in this manner,
Per capita, Canada has more of
its citizens abroad than any developed democracy, more than two million. Most
of them don’t vote. Canadians are free to sulk, to sit on the sofa and
sneer at political choice, to let others choose their leaders for them. In
Ontario, for the first time, this year we slipped below a majority of citizens
deciding in favour of the polling booth over the couch. Democracy requires legitimacy.
A genuinely free citizenry choose their governors to make tough choices on their
behalf. When indolence or deliberate vote suppression tactics mean that fewer
than half of the electorate chooses their government, we are at the edge of a
slide toward illegitimacy.
Nudging tactics may construe a higher rate of voters to the polls,
as former research analyst for the Library of Parliament, Amanda Clarke
suggests,
“The
theory of “nudge” underlies this proposal – a creative and clever means of
encouraging individuals to vote by strategically altering the context in which
the decision to vote or not is made. To be sure, nudge tactics will likely do
little to encourage participation among those who abstain from voting out of a
genuine dislike for electoral politics. However, for the large numbers of
people who do not vote because of apathy, a lack of information and motivation,
or administrative barriers, nudges may be all we need to facilitate
participation. Simple solutions to complex problems are rare — Canadian
policy-makers should be nudged to recognize them when they come along.”
Ultimately the process, in which we
operate, must be made fully operable in between elections within the Canadian
citizenry. A venue which facilitates communication between elected officials
and voters must be accessible, user friendly and convey the essence of
truthfulness as being paramount according to MP Carolyn Bennett,
Things have turned out worse
that anyone could have imagined. Parliamentary Committees aren’t given the budgets
to travel or develop the capacity for e-consultation. This year the committee
study on OPEN GOVERNMENT was denied a budget for consultations designed to
enable the members to talk to Canadians about their needs! ‘Democracy Between
Elections’ must mean that citizens have a genuine opportunity to shape public
policy not just at the ballot box. A majority government should not mean
‘central command and control’ for four years where the only ideas considered
emanate from the Prime Minister’s office. The relationship between
elected representatives and citizens should also reflect that the ‘sum is
greater that the parts’. The foundation must be a deep belief that citizens
know what is working and what is not. Elected representatives also need much
more meaningful mechanisms to tap into the expertise that exists across the
country in almost every area of public policy. We must take seriously our
responsibility to harvest observations and good ideas that could help many,
many people.
