Is democracy really being served in Canada?
An appointed television personality is deciding the fate of the government. Stephan Dion, a man that only 25% of the electorate are “comfortable with" as PM, is taking office. The Liberal Party Convention will choose Canada’s next Prime Minster in April—hope you like Ignatieff!
Like Canada’s appointed upper house and monarch, all of the above is in the rule book. But if YOU were to build a democracy, are these the sort of things that you would write into the constitution? Sure you would to put checks on power and ensure functionality, but is this really how you would do it?
The fact that there has only been a single coalition government in Canada’s post-confederation history, says something about the wisdom and legitimacy that previous political leaders have afforded this process.
Canadians went to the polls and voted for five separate parties who promised to pursue five different platforms in Parliament. Now two of those parties have decided to abandon the platforms on which they were elected, and adopt a new one. I acknowledge and respect the right of parties to unite and work toward common goals. If Dion and Layton attempted to form a coalition government after six months of a stalled Parliament, I would be far more understanding. However, after very little effort, these two parties have “thrown in the towel” less than a month and a half after Canadians expressed their opinions at the polls. Personally, I firmly believe that this was the NDP and Liberal’s back up plan all along, but they concealed it due to the fact that A LOT less people would have voted for the Liberals had they known there was a real chance that Dion would actually become Prime Minister.
Canadians have become habituated to not getting what they voted for. Not that long ago, Jean Chrétien built his first campaign around a promise to abolish the GST. Once in office, he reneged on the commitment, but was happily given a second majority by voters. Similairly, Dalton McGuinty completely scraped virtually every one of his first term campaign promises, only to waltz into a second term. In Canada, election "promises" and platforms have come to mean absolutely nothing. Canadians have become complacent, and their democracy will continue to suffer as long as voters resign themselves to such low expectations of their representatives.
Listening to many left-leaning Canadians today, reminds me of listening to the Republican Party in 2001, who thought that their new found power in both legislative houses and the Whitehouse permitted them to ignore a political demographic of the population. This is never acceptable, nor is it productive. As the Republicans learned this November, you will reap what you have sewn. Canadian’s often worry about the separation of Quebec, but the Western Separatist movement is very real—and growing. In fact, in February 2008, an Angus-Reid poll showed that 23% of Albertans believe that their provice would be better off as its own country. The ousting of Harper will only help such statistics grow. With an abundance of money, the now "have not" province of Ontario, and longstanding complaints about a lack of representation in Ottawa, you can be certain that an increasing number of Westerners will begin to question their participation in the country we call Canada.
In these turbulent times, it is of utmost importance that all voices be factored into the policy-making process. Harper must LEAD, and not rule. The Prime Minister is charged with the task of representing all of Canada—including those with whom he disagrees. If Michaëlle Jean is wise, she will bring all the parties of Parliament together and insist that they do what Canadians very recently asked them to do: WORK TOGETHER. The minority Parliament evidences that the spectrum of political opinions in Canada is as broad and diverse as ever. This diversity must be voiced in Parliament, and will not be well-represented by any power bloc—be that bloc Conservative or Liberal.
An appointed television personality is deciding the fate of the government. Stephan Dion, a man that only 25% of the electorate are “comfortable with" as PM, is taking office. The Liberal Party Convention will choose Canada’s next Prime Minster in April—hope you like Ignatieff!
Like Canada’s appointed upper house and monarch, all of the above is in the rule book. But if YOU were to build a democracy, are these the sort of things that you would write into the constitution? Sure you would to put checks on power and ensure functionality, but is this really how you would do it?
The fact that there has only been a single coalition government in Canada’s post-confederation history, says something about the wisdom and legitimacy that previous political leaders have afforded this process.
Canadians went to the polls and voted for five separate parties who promised to pursue five different platforms in Parliament. Now two of those parties have decided to abandon the platforms on which they were elected, and adopt a new one. I acknowledge and respect the right of parties to unite and work toward common goals. If Dion and Layton attempted to form a coalition government after six months of a stalled Parliament, I would be far more understanding. However, after very little effort, these two parties have “thrown in the towel” less than a month and a half after Canadians expressed their opinions at the polls. Personally, I firmly believe that this was the NDP and Liberal’s back up plan all along, but they concealed it due to the fact that A LOT less people would have voted for the Liberals had they known there was a real chance that Dion would actually become Prime Minister.
Canadians have become habituated to not getting what they voted for. Not that long ago, Jean Chrétien built his first campaign around a promise to abolish the GST. Once in office, he reneged on the commitment, but was happily given a second majority by voters. Similairly, Dalton McGuinty completely scraped virtually every one of his first term campaign promises, only to waltz into a second term. In Canada, election "promises" and platforms have come to mean absolutely nothing. Canadians have become complacent, and their democracy will continue to suffer as long as voters resign themselves to such low expectations of their representatives.
Listening to many left-leaning Canadians today, reminds me of listening to the Republican Party in 2001, who thought that their new found power in both legislative houses and the Whitehouse permitted them to ignore a political demographic of the population. This is never acceptable, nor is it productive. As the Republicans learned this November, you will reap what you have sewn. Canadian’s often worry about the separation of Quebec, but the Western Separatist movement is very real—and growing. In fact, in February 2008, an Angus-Reid poll showed that 23% of Albertans believe that their provice would be better off as its own country. The ousting of Harper will only help such statistics grow. With an abundance of money, the now "have not" province of Ontario, and longstanding complaints about a lack of representation in Ottawa, you can be certain that an increasing number of Westerners will begin to question their participation in the country we call Canada.
In these turbulent times, it is of utmost importance that all voices be factored into the policy-making process. Harper must LEAD, and not rule. The Prime Minister is charged with the task of representing all of Canada—including those with whom he disagrees. If Michaëlle Jean is wise, she will bring all the parties of Parliament together and insist that they do what Canadians very recently asked them to do: WORK TOGETHER. The minority Parliament evidences that the spectrum of political opinions in Canada is as broad and diverse as ever. This diversity must be voiced in Parliament, and will not be well-represented by any power bloc—be that bloc Conservative or Liberal.
